Universally compatible, semi-elliptical, vertically deployed sail system for wind—propelled vehicles

ABSTRACT

A comprehensive System of hoisted, universally compatible, semi-elliptical mainsails and self-tacking headsails. Reducing weight on deck and aloft and fully cockpit-controlled, self-boomed System sails replace cumbersome conventional genoas and rigid booms with self-boomed, overlapping, self-tacking, semi-elliptical headsails and mainsails. Each sail assures optimum sail interface. Synergism between aerodynamic headboard-end plate combinations, integrated alternate energy, and maximum sailing efficiency optimizes convenience, safety and performance. Overlapping Maxjib ( 26 ), Non-overlapping Maxjib ( 28 ) and self-boomed Maxmain ( 30 ) are self-boomed, self-tacking hoisted sails. External-spar Maxmain ( 32 ) provides unique new System benefits for boomed mainsail configurations. Usable in various combinations, entirely new sail types assure cost savings for boat builders and users alike: Cost-effective sail power for both recreational and commercial users of wind-powered vehicles as well as new markets for boat builders and sail makers.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a Continuation-in-part of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 09/781,167 Priority Filing date Feb. 13, 2001, nowabandoned which claims the benefit of provisional application No.60/182,207 filed Feb. 14, 2000.

BACKGROUND

1. Field of Invention

2. Overview of the Prior Art

Performance Versus Convenience and Safety Priorities: 1925 to Date

Until 1975, sailmakers primarily marketed sail performance or saildurability. Technology for convenient sail handling was still in thefuture, and easy-to-use high performance sails were unimaginable. In1975, truly functional convenience and safety-oriented sail handlingtechnology began to appear, promising to make sailing easier and saferbut imposing significant performance compromises.

Notwithstanding inevitable performance compromises, boat owners and newboat buyers increasingly opted for easily controlled, or “convenient”sails. Sail design dictum inescapably cast optimum sail performance andoptimum sail handling convenience as irreconcilable adversaries.

An Ongoing Geometric Prohibition of Efficient Sail Design

A 1925 discovery revealed that triangular sail form was the leastefficient form possible, and that elliptical sail form was the mostefficient form possible. Unfortunately, conventional sailboat riggeometry would impede application of that discovery to the sails ofconventionally rigged sailboats, underscoring a basic and apparentlyirreducible gap between sail design theory and sail design feasibility.

A side view of any conventionally rigged sailboat shows a mast supportedby forward and aft rigging wires, forming fore and aft rig triangles.Sail designers quite naturally, and invariably have respected those rigtriangles as absolute limitations on the perimeter of a mainsail or aself-tacking headsail, each of which attaches to a single control line,or sheet, and each of which connects to a sailboat inside itscorresponding rig triangle.

Terminology: Functionally, mainsails are self-tacking sails but arereferred to simply as “mainsails”, whereas headsails that areself-tacking are referred to interchangeably as “self-tacking headsails“or self-tacking jibs”. Use of the terms “mainsail”, “self-tackingheadsail”, “self-tacking jib” in this Application uniformly denotes asail controlled by a single sheet that tacks and jibes without resort toalternating port and starboard sheets for each tack or jibe. A detaileddisclosure of the descriptive terms used in this Application appears ina subsequent section.

Designers thus drew mainsails and self-tacking headsails as smaller, or“inner” triangles limited by companion rig elements. Historically, aboat's mast has always limited the profile of its self-tacking jib, anda boat's permanent backstay limited the profile of its mainsail.

Designers accepted uniformly that:

-   -   1. optimum sail handling convenience and optimum sail        performance were irreconcilable; and also that    -   2. sails controlled by a single-sheet, or self-tacking sails,        could not tack and jibe safely and reliably if the trailing edge        of any such a sail overlapped any companion rig element.

Sail designers never even speculated on whether an overlapping,self-tacking mainsail or headsail was theoretically feasible, or whethersuch sails could reconcile optimum performance and convenience. To thecontrary, designers simply assumed that optimum sailboat performance andoptimum convenience were irreconcilable, and that as a matter ofabsolute design dictum, a safe, functional self-tacking sail must notoverlap companion rig elements.

No designer imagined that a sail controlled by a single sheet could tackand jibe safely and reliably, notwithstanding that its trailing edge hadto cross an intervening mast or permanent backstay as the sail tacked orjibed. Designers assumed that the sail would “hang up” and eventuallyself-destroy. That assumption profoundly obstructed advances in the artof sail design and fabrication, as will be seen in a subsequent reviewof prior art.

Ideally, any boat's helmsman, unassisted by crew, would be able tomaintain optimum boat speed in all conditions and, without assistance,turning through the wind as easily as one drives a car. That ideal hasremained unattainable. To meet changing conditions, boat owners muststill buy diverse inventories of headsails, each controlled by separateport and starboard sheets; each yielding a level of performanceproportional to sail cost and the crew effort and risk required to usethen. Turning through the wind with sails that are not self-tackingrequires a high effort, potentially dangerous alternate tensioning andreleasing of port and starboard headsail sheets. No available sailsystem has ever minimized cost, effort, and risk while providing optimumsailboat performance.

Rigging and Sail-making Terminology

The text of the present cause, “the text” describes Applicant's sailsystem, the “System” with terminology known to one skilled in the art.In that context, a “conventionally rigged” sailboat is one havingconventional “rig elements” comprising one or more masts, each supportedby “standing rigging” consisting of forward, lateral and aft riggingwires. Conventional standing rigging consists of:

-   a “permanent forestay”; port and starboard “shrouds”; and a    “permanent backstay”.

Terminology used by those skilled in the art to describe a boat's sailsand sail control systems follow:

-   1. The upper, forward and aft corners of a sail are its “head”,    “tack”, and “clew”, respectively. The leading, trailing, and bottom    edges of a sail are its “luff”, “leech”, and “foot”, respectively. A    semi-elliptical sail's “roach” area is that area extending aft of    the linear head-to-clew line of a sail.-   2. In contrast to the linear leech of a triangular sail, the leech    of a “semi-elliptical” sail is a convex curve.-   3. Forward sails, or “headsails” may be controlled either by a    single “self-tacking” sheet that requires no crew intervention, or    by separate port and starboard sheets that crew must alternately    tension and release.-   4. A Mainsail systematically connects to a mast along its luff. A    mainsail's foot typically connects to a rigid external boom    controlled by a single self-tacking sheet.-   5. A headsail systematically connects along its luff to a forestay.    Single self-tacking sheet have been used for headsail control only    if the headsail's leech did not overlap its companion mast. Mast    overlap in a headsail has invariably imposed separate, alternately    tensioned port and starboard sheets.-   6. Typically, sail construction involved woven or laminated    sailcloth cut into panels and assembled by sewing or gluing.    Recently, sailmakers introduced sails that employing proprietary    fiber-oriented laminating technology, whereby individual fibers are    laminated in specific orientation and density between layers of    synthetic film, often with abrasion resistant outer layers. North    3-D™, UK Tape Drive™, and Sobstad Genesis™ exemplify the latter type    of sail construction.-   7. Battens have long been used to stabilize a sail's leech. By 1980,    easily broken, heavy wooden battens had been replaced by durable,    semi-rigid fiberglass battens.-   8. A diagonal “vang” tackle or solid strut connects a rigid boom to    a boat's deck. Such vangs have been required to resist the tendency    of a sail's clew to rise as a boat turns away from the axis of the    wind, or “reaches” off.-   9. “Standing sails” connect along their luff edge to a boat's    forestay in the case of a headsail, and to its mast in the case of a    mainsail.-   10. The “working sails” of a conventionally rigged sailboat consist    of a conventional, non-overlapping headsail, or “working jib” and a    conventional mainsail.-   11. A “free-flying headsail” can use elliptical form because it sets    outside a boat's rigging, usually ahead of its forestay, as in the    case of a spinnaker. Connected to the boat only at three corners, a    free-flying headsail must either be jibed, or hoisted and lowered    entirely, as conditions change or each time a boat turns through the    wind. Such sails typically require crew to set and strike a lateral    supporting pole as conditions and boat course change. Free flying    headsails are crew intensive, and even with skilled crew, such sails    are frequently dangerous to use.-   12. The foot length of headsails is generally expressed as a    percentage of “j”, which is forestay-to-mast distance at deck level.    Thus, a 100% jib, or conventional “working jib” is    “non-overlapping.” A headsail whose foot length exceeds “j” is    generally referred to as an “overlapping headsail”, or “genoa”    because its clew overlaps a boat's mast.-   13. A mainsail whose aft end does not contact a boat's “permanent    backstay” is a “non-overlapping mainsail”.

Most Existing Sailboats Use Only Two Sails: 1925 to Date

At least ninety-percent of contemporary sailboats are “conventionallyrigged”, having a mast supported by forward, lateral, and aft riggingwires: a forestay, lateral shrouds, and a backstay, respectively. Forcost and convenience reasons, most conventionally rigged sailboats useonly two sails, known as “working sails”, which, in the case ofvertically deployed, or “hoisted sails” consist of:

-   -   1. A forward, or headsail hoisted by a halyard; attached along        its leading edge to a forestay; and attached at its aft corner,        or “clew” either to alternately tensioned port and starboard        sheets, or to a single self-tacking sheet. In the latter case,        the headsail is self-tacking. Heretofore, it has been considered        impossible for a headsail to overlap its companion mast or any        other rig element while tacking and jibing.    -   2. Headsails may connect to a rigid external jib spar, or        “external jib boom”, which like a mainsail boom, is controlled        by a single sheet and serves to hold a companion sail in        extension. A halyard line hoists a Mainsail. It connects along        its leading edge to a companion mast connects along its foot to        a rigid external spar or “boom” controlled by a single        self-tacking sheet.

Sails controlled by a single self-tacking sheet eliminate the need forcrew to alternately release and tension port and starboard sheets, as isthe case with overlapping headsails and free-flying headsails. A boatwith self-tacking mainsail and headsail enables its helmsman to turn theboat as easily as a driver turns an automobile.

Despite their convenience, hoisted, triangular self-tacking jibs lostpopularity as post-1980 sailors regularly chose larger, overlappingtriangular hoisted roller-furling headsails that could be deployed andrecovered from the safety of the cockpit. The difficult, often dangerouson-deck sail handling imposed by hoisted sails quickly becameunacceptable to a majority of sailors. However, the effort required totack and jibe such overlapping headsails would quickly underscore theirdeficiencies in terms of safety and convenience.

Thus did the hoisted self-tacking sail lose market share to heavier,more costly roller furling headsail and mainsail configurations, whichalso compromised performance. After an early rush to roller furlingconfigurations, sailors would reevaluate the convenience-oriented-trendto long-footed overlapping furling genoas and roller-furling mainsails.The real versatility and convenience of such sails eventually beliedsailmakers' promotional sales rhetoric, and a strong but unrealizablemarket demand for a more powerful self-tacking headsail continued togrow.

Triangular Working Sails

In theory, the worst possible two-dimensional sail profile istriangular, and the best is elliptical. Notwithstanding, designers stillcondemn theoretically superior elliptical working sails as unfeasible.This anomaly is explained below.

-   1. Since a boat's non-overlapping working sails, its mainsail and    non-overlapping headsail, invariably set inside the confines of a    boat's rigging wires, or “rig triangles”, designers uniformly    assumed that the profile of working sails could not overlap    companion rig triangles.-   2. On the other hand, supplementary free flying sails set outside a    boat's rigging, thus avoiding contact with rig elements.    Consequently, designers could draw such sails with semi-elliptical    profiles. However, free flying sails required costly supplemental    equipment and a complement of skilled athletic crewmembers. Useful    only in limited downwind situations, free flying sails addressed    performance priorities while ignoring convenience and safety    entirely.-   3. Optimum performance still requires a costly, cumbersome variety    of inconvenient hoisted triangular headsails and free flying    headsails controlled by alternately tensioned port and starboard    sheets.-   4. Optimum convenience favors roller-furling sails, but potential    mechanical problems plus the limited versatility of such sails in    varying conditions qualifies this apparent convenience.-   5. Designers succeeded in making hoisted mainsails easier to use,    but their surface area remains limited by conventional rig geometry,    and they still require a boom to hold the sail in extension for    downwind sailing.-   6. As for hoisted, self-tacking headsails, Designers did not    succeed, either in making such sails easier to use, or in extending    their sail area beyond triangular form. As a result, hoisted    self-tacking headsails all but disappeared from the market as    roller-furling headsail configurations replaced them.-   7. Optimum convenience would favor hoisted self-tacking headsails    if:    -   A. an external spar was not required for effective downwind        deployment;    -   B. deployment, reefing, and recovery could be performed from the        safety of the cockpit.    -   C. surface area and form were not limited to a triangle that        must fit into the triangle formed by a boat's mast and forestay,        variously referred to as a 100% headsail; a 100% jib; or a        working jib. Such sails can have a single self-tacking sheet or        port and starboard sheets. Few boats use self-tacking        configurations because their overlapping genoa headsails require        two sheets. In this overwhelming majority of cases, as hoisted        sails are changed, crewmembers must change the sheets from one        sail to another, an often dangerous maneuver.    -   D. a 100% headsail were not underpowered wind speeds of less        than 20 knots. Undoubtedly, over 90% of sailing takes place in        less than 20 knots of wind.-   8. For precisely that reason, hoisted sails have given way to easily    deployed overlapping furling genoa sail configurations, but not    without imposing important compromises: While a fully deployed    overlapping furling headsail has more sail area than a hoisted    non-overlapping working jib, the furling configuration costs more    than a hoisted one, adds weight aloft, is less efficient for heavier    conditions when partially furled, is skill and effort intensive, and    can be dangerous to use.-   9. In summary, contemporary designers have never been able to    reconcile optimum performance with convenience and safety for    conventionally rigged boats.

What has Changed: 1925 to Date

Sail deployment, reefing and recovery as well as sailcloth and sailconstruction methods have advanced markedly along with thethree-dimensional aspect of sails.

What has not Changed: 1925 to Date

Theoretically, “Semi-elliptical” working sails having an elliptical, ornearly elliptical trailing edge, or “leech” could produce optimum sailarea and optimum efficiency. Such working sails have never been reducedto practice due to the persistence of prevailing design assumptions andthe absence of feasible, universal design Parameters for feasibleworking sail overlap. The persistent and seemingly inevitable triangularprofile of today's working sails imposes three major design barriers:

-   -   A. The sail area of a mainsail is still limited by its companion        permanent backstay;    -   B. The sail area of a working jib is still limited by its        companion mast and lateral rigging; and    -   C. A rigid external spar is still indispensable for maintaining        tension along the foot of a headsail or mainsail in all wind and        sea conditions. Such spars pose a danger to crewmembers and, in        the case of a jib, obstruct access to a boat's foredeck anchor        stowage locker.

Conflicting Priorities: 1980 to Date

By 1980 sailmakers were celebrating the introduction of furling sailsand promoting that as the answer to both performance and convenienceissues. As seen below, sailmakers' claims differed materially from thedemands imposed by actual sailing conditions.

-   -   1. Maximum boat speed across a wide range of conditions had        always required a maximum number of sails and a maximum number        of skilled, athletic crewmembers willing to perform dangerous        on-deck sail maneuvers regardless of wind and sea conditions.        Such is still the case.    -   2. At the opposite extreme, “multi-purpose” furling sails        delivered maximum convenience but compromised windward ability        and maximum boat speed by ten to twenty percent. In addition, if        a furling headsail or mainsail jammed, the only way to reduce        sail area in heavy conditions would be to cut the sail away: an        expensive and dangerous exercise, even when possible.

The Present State of the Art: Boat Owner Priorities in Detail

At one extreme, convenience and safety-oriented boat owners acceptedonly easy to use cockpit-controlled roller-furling sails. For them, boatspeed was secondary. At the other extreme, boat speed prioritiesrequired large, skilled crews to perform dangerous on-deck sail handlingmaneuvers, thus compromising convenience and often safety.

On balance, boat owners today increasingly seek convenience inpreference to boat speed. This is in part explained by the fact mostboats are sailed “shorthanded” by average sailors. Few boats have a fullcrew with the skill and physical capacity to derive maximum speed fromeven the best of available sails and sail deployment devices.Historically, maximum boat speed has been irreconcilable with sailhandling convenience and safety. Reconciliation of those priorities hasevaded designers to the present date.

Present State of the Art: A Critical and Ongoing Sail Design Assumption

Three-dimensional sail form has evolved consistently yet thetwo-dimensional triangular sail profile still dominates. That disparityis due primarily to a single, ongoing design assumption: The back end ofa boat's working sails cannot overlap any companion rig element.

In 1925, it was unthinkable that the back end of a mainsail fitted withheavy horizontal wooden battens could pass across a boat's backstay asthe boat turned through the wind. The battens would break. Even lessconceivable was a headsail that overlapped its companion mast. Designerseventually resorted to supplementing the sail power of underpoweredtriangular working sails with free flying sails set outside the riggingfor light air and downwind sailing.

Supplemental, or “free flying sails”, are set and maneuvered forward ofa boat's forestay, thus eliminating rig compatibility issues. Freeflying sails attach to a boat only at their three corners and can employan elliptical or semi-elliptical two-dimensional profile.

Such sails were suitable when the wind came from aft of a boat's beam,but they imposed a mast-mounted lateral support pole and frequent anddangerous on-deck sail and pole handling. Free flying sails would remainan application of elliptical sail form, but one for use in limitedsituations; one that addressed neither optimum convenience, optimumeconomy nor optimum safety.

Full-batten Non-overlapping Mainsails and Furling Mainsails: 1980 toDate

By 1980, designs for fully battened mainsails with a small positiveroach area had gained popularity for racing boats having alternating or“running” backstays and for multihulls that had no backstays. Multihullsand America's Cup boats exemplify such boats. For such boats, rigoverlap was not an issue since backstays either did not exist, or theycould be moved out of the way as a mainsail tacked or jibed.

However, failure to move such running backstays out of the way in timecould lead to serious damage including dismasting. Such sails were notreadily accepted by the mainstream market, which opted for theconvenience of furling mainsail configurations rather than optimumperformance.

Most sailors considered the performance benefits of hoisted, full battenmainsails disproportional to their incremental cost and inconvenience.It remained unthinkable that a mainsail could overlap a companionpermanent backstay, and even more remote that a self-tacking headsailcould have genoa-equivalent sail area by overlapping a companion mast.

Today's convenience-oriented sailors either accept important safety andperformance compromises or they supplement the undersized triangularprofile of their standing headsail and mainsail with inconvenient, oftendangerous free-flying sails. In most cases, owners opt for long-footedgenoas that impose alternately tensioned port and starboard sheets. Asseen below, small-roach or no-roach mainsails and triangular headsailsare still the only available sails for contemporary, conventionallyrigged sailboats. Even the largest available full batten mainsailcombined with a 100% working cannot power any but the very lightest ofsailboats in light wind conditions.

The Present State of the Art—Reality and Rhetoric

The present state of the art reveals that:

-   -   1. Currently available working sails mirror underpowered 1980's        counterparts, thus lacking versatility for a wide range of wind        conditions;    -   2. As in 1980, most boat owners forego convenient but        underpowered self-tacking jibs, opting for long-footed roller        furling genoas with separate port and starboard sheets; and    -   3. As in 1980, maximum boat speed in all conditions still        requires dangerous on-deck sail handling, large costly sail        inventories and a full complement of skilled crewmembers.

Currently Available Working Sails have not Changed Since 1980

Three highly knowledgeable boat owners recently built state-of-the artsailboats. Despite extensive experience and budgets, none of themescaped the convenience and performance compromises that prevailed in1980. The mandatory triangular two-dimensional sail profile stillimposed sails that failed to satisfy either optimum performancepriorities or optimum convenience and safety priorities.

Currently Available Sails: Performance-oriented Choices Multiple HoistedHeadsails for Best Performance but Least Convenience

Cruising World magazine's December 2002 cover stories revealed that boatbuilder Peter Johnstone's “state-of-the-art” sails for his new 62-footcatamaran were reruns of 1980 counterparts. For its 7,000-mile initialcruise, the boat's shorthanded crew of four was made up of a veteran offour round-the-world races; a long-time charter boat captain; anexperienced inshore racing sailor; and Peter Johnstone, builder of thehighly regarded “J Boat” line of cruiser/racer sailboats.

To meet changing conditions, Mr. Johnstone chose a variety oftask-specific hoisted headsails with companion deck stowage bags. Tochange a headsail crew went forward, just as performance-orientedsailors had always done, accepting the accompanying effort and danger:

Mr. Johnstone sums up his sail changing Procedure as follows:

“Each jib has an [on-deck stowage bag or] turtle. We simply

-   [1] drop the jib in the turtle,-   [2] zip it, then-   [3] unhank the sail,-   [4] detach its port and starboard sheets]-   [5] the next jib gets hanked on,-   [6] port and starboard sheets are attached to it,-   [7] we unzip the turtle, and-   [8] hoist

A change takes ten minutes.” (Peter Johnstone, Cruising World, pp.40-45, December 2002).

Changing Multiple Hoisted Headsails is More Difficult on a HeelingMonohull

A ten-minute sail change for a highly skilled crew on a catamaran caneasily become an endless story with a bad ending for average sailors ona monohull, which heels more than a catamaran. The above eight-stepmaneuver is identical to sail change maneuvers sailors have alwaysperformed and is as dangerous and fatiguing as ever.

Why Peformance-oriented Sailors Choose Hoisted Sails

Mr. Johnstone gave his reasons for choosing multiple hoisted sails asfollows:

“Roller furling . . . limits your sail selection and places too muchweight up high . . . . Roller furling makes more sense on a heeling[monohull], where it's not safe to go forward of the mast.”

Thus, Mr. Johnstone identifies four unsolved problems:

-   1. Furling headsails do not have the versatility to meet a wide    range of conditions;-   2. Furling configurations impose detrimental weight aloft;-   3. No satisfactory alternative to multiple hoisted headsails is    currently available; and-   4. Going forward for on-deck sail handling is not safe, particularly    on monohull sailboats, which make up the overwhelming majority of    existing sailboats.

If Mr. Johnstone could have conceived of a truly versatile hoistedheadsail configuration that eliminated on-deck sail handling, he wouldhave installed it on his own boat. The present state of the art offersnot even a suggestion for truly versatile hoisted headsails that aresafe and easy to use.

Currently Available Working Sails: Convenience-oriented Choices RollerFurling Genoas for Optimum Convenience, not Performance

Peter Johnstone wrote that going forward of the mast to change hoistedheadsails is dangerous. Not surprisingly, most contemporary sailorsagree. As a result, they simply get by with a single cockpit-controlledgeneral purpose furling genoa.

In difficult situations, where “getting by” may not be sufficient, ageneral purpose furling genoa poses safety issues. If a long-footedfurling genoa jams, a dangerous situation is in place. Furthermore,long-footed genoas cannot furl effectively to working jib size orsmaller for heavy air use. Thus, a sail with compromised windwardability makes clearing dangerous windward obstacles even more hazardous.Walt Schultz, naval architect and owner of Shannon Yachts summed it upin saying,

“ . . . it is still impossible to roller furl a large overlapping genoainto a useable and safe working jib.” (Ocean Navigator no. 100, 1999)”

As a genoa furls, its clew rises, causing it to lose effective sheetingangle in precisely the conditions that most demand an effectiveheadsail. Thus, boats with a single furling genoa are underpowered forlight air conditions and are unable to meet heavy air conditionseffectively. Designers have not discovered that single headsail, whetherhoisted or roller furling, that could satisfy both performance andconvenience priorities.

Currently Available Sails: Performance-oriented Choices for Light Airand Downwind Sailing Free Flying Sails: a Performance Choice thatIgnores Convenience and Safety

For light air and offwind sailing versatility, Peter Johnstone's“screecher” free-flying headsail and single-line furler proveduncontrollable. After the voyage, he replaced them with a supplementaryhoisted sail. Sailmaker claims for today's offwind sails and related“convenient” deployment gear repeat the unrealistic claims of 1980.Reality belies these claims for safe, convenient light-air and downwindsailing:

“If you believe your sailmaker, screechers are user-friendly . . . awell-orchestrated plan helps us tame the beast somewhat, but typicallywe all end up on our backs [exhausted]. Every time the [screecher]spanks us we take it down.”

“The continuous-line furler is “the latest development from the VolvoRace”, according to its manufacturer. With a crew of 10, I'm sure theunit will suffice, but for shorthanded sailing, the furler unit hasmultiple flaws . . . . Typically the furler jams, and a partially furledscreecher flogs until the whole mess is wrested into submission.”(Cruising World, Peter Johnstone, pp. 40-45, December 2002).

Free-flying sails and single-line furling gear were introduced in the1970's, when they exhibited the same shortcomings Mr. Johnstonesuffered. Many sailors, including Applicant, tried and abandoned theseproducts just as Mr. Johnstone would do twenty years later.

Currently Available Sails: An Alternate Performance-weighted Approach

U.K. Yachting World editor, Andrew Bray supplemented his new boat'sunderpowered, boomed, roller-furling self-tacking jib with a free-flyinglight air sail, thus accepting dangerous on-deck sail handling inexchange for improved light air and downwind potential. He found noworking sail combination that would have allowed him to dispense withsupplementary free-flying sails.

Currently Available Sails: A Convenience and Safety-weighted Approach

Sail magazine editor, Patricia Wales chose twin headsails, whichrequired dual forestays: a small, boomed triangular jib set on an innerforestay for heavier conditions plus a general purpose roller furlinggenoa set on an outer forestay. The inner sail was convenient, butunderpowered except in high winds, and the heavy furling genoa wasunderpowered for light air conditions. Ms. Wales simply found noavailable working sails that would have provided self-tackingconvenience and safety combined with optimum performance across a widerange of wind and sea conditions.

Neither Furling Genoas nor Free Flying Sails Reduce Light Air Motoring

Ms. Wales and Mr. Bray will no doubt have equal resort to motoring ormotor sailing in light air conditions. Sailing shorthanded, Mr. Braywill use his hard-to-handle free flying sail infrequently, preferring tostart his engine as wind speeds drop.

At an approximately equivalent wind speed Ms. Wales will give up on herunderpowered furling genoa and start her engine. Ms. Wales speaks formost boat owner in saying,

“[We] are willing to give up a bit of performance in the interest ofeasy sail handling . . . . This is a tradeoff.” (Wales, Sail, February1998).

Bill Schanen, editor of Sailing magazine, reiterated the majority viewon existing conventional hoisted headsails, writing, “To set a headsail,someone has to go to the bow . . . as in the old days. Only for thetruly pure at heart, I'm afraid” (Schanen, Sailing, January 2000).

No available headsail, whether hoisted or roller furling, satisfies bothperformance and convenience priorities across a range of wind speedsfrom five to thirty-five knots. Economical, efficient hoisted sailconfigurations will never rival furling configurations for market shareunless hoisted sail configurations can first, be deployed, reefed, andrecovered from the safety of a boat's cockpit and second, provideperformance superior to triangular counterparts.

Overview of the Prior Art 1925-1980

In 1925, Manfred Curry discovered that triangular wings and sails hadthe least efficient profiles. Contrarily, he discovered that ellipticalwings and sails were most efficient because they induced lessaerodynamic drag and allowed a boat to sail more upright than triangularcounterparts. A boat that leans less is able to go forward more easilywith less lateral slippage.

By World War II, aircraft designers had reduced elliptical wings topractice. Contrarily, sail designers assumed that the aft end or “roach”of a sail could not tack or jibe across any part of a boat's rig, thusprohibiting application of Mr. Curry's theory to working sails.

Eventually, unconventional rig designs would enable semi-ellipticalmainsails for a small minority of sailboats. One such design approach,exemplified by diverse racing monohulls, specifies alternately tensionedport and starboard backstays. Other unconventional rig designs eliminatebackstays, and a few “free-standing” rigs eliminate rigging wiresaltogether, thereby enabling large-roach mainsails but not overlapping,self-tacking headsails.

Overlapping semi-elliptical, self-tacking headsails have been ignoredentirely by contemporary designers, even for such unconventionallyrigged boats. Consequently, a self-tacking headsail with sufficientpower for light air use remains inconceivable.

Overview of the Prior Art: 1980 to Date: Light Air Compromises forPerformance-oriented Sailors

In 1980, enthusiastic boat owners bought costly second-generationfree-flying headsails to supplement the inadequate performance oftriangular working sails. Second-generation free flying sails pretendedto dispense with lateral support Doles and offer improved convenienceand safety. The sails proved unstable downwind and as hard to recover asearlier free flying sails. True downwind sailing still required alateral support pole.

Even with the most recent spinnaker recovery sleeves or furlers andretractable bowsprits, free flying sails remain altogether inappropriatefor shorthanded sailing. Stated otherwise, free flying sails just aren'ta workable light air sailing solution for the mainstream market composedof average boats sailed by shorthanded crews of average sailors.

Overview of the Prior Art: 1980 to Date: Light-air Compromises forConvenience-oriented Sailors

Convenience-oriented sailors of the 1970's quickly accepted marketingclaims that roller furling sails worked well in all conditions andsatisfied convenience and safety priorities. These claims quickly provedunfounded. As concerned mainsails, triangular furling mainsails wereunderpowered and could jam in their mast slot, presenting a dangeroussituation. Similar problems could occur with headsail furlers,presenting similarly dangerous situations. Furling a large headsail inhigh wind conditions is at best a labor-intensive, anguishing experiencebest handled by two skilled crewmembers.

Long-footed furling genoas did eliminate on-deck sail changes, but theycould not meet a wide range of conditions. The promised versatility wasillusory, as was the ease of use on all but the smallest boats.Certainly, deployment was more convenient than deployment of hoistedheadsails. However, the high levels of physical effort and crewcoordination required to tack and jibe long-footed “general purpose”furling genoas offset much of their deployment convenience. As forsafety, if a furling genoa jammed, it could not be lowered, giving riseto a dangerous situation.

The force of gravity facilitates lowering a hoisted sail, whereasnatural forces work against furling sail recovery, imposing levels ofphysical force that can overwhelm crew and gear. Finally, triangularfurling genoas cause excessive heel and provide poor mainsail interface.

Overview of the Prior Art: 1980 to Date: The Present State of the Art:Mainsail Roach and Permanent Backstays

Steve Dashew, American boat builder reiterated an ongoing designassumption in 1992, writing,

-   -   “The problem with most cruising rigs . . . is that the permanent        backstay . . . gets in the way of an optimum sail shape.        (Dashew, Sail, 1992).

A sailmaker's error resulted in a mainsail that overlapped the permanentbackstay of a Dashew-designed boat. The accident led Mr. Dashew torecognize that a mainsail could overlap a backstay “to some extent”, buthe was unable to identify a reliable overlap limit. Mr. Dashew concludedthat it would be impossible to develop universally applicablepredetermined maximum roach overlap parameters. Once he had reached thatconclusion, Mr. Dashew resolved his own rig overlap issues byeliminating backstays altogether for his future designs.

In 2001, Mr. Dashew confirmed that predetermined maximum roachparameters were unfeasible saying,

-   -   “I don't think you can make a blanket statement about the        maximum roach overlap that will work.” (Steve Dashew, email        communication with Applicant, Oct. 17, 2001).

Mr. Dashew's restatement of the insolvable nature of the problem and itscomplexity establishes first, that predetermined maximum roachparameters were not obvious and secondly, that if such parameters couldbe reduced to practice, they would constitute a major advance in the artof sail power.

Owners of existing boats or designers for the mainstream sailboat marketcannot resort to eliminating backstays or other radical design changesto render overlapping self-tacking mainsails compatible with particularrig geometry. Even if they could, such rigs do not resolve theinadequacy of existing headsails in the face of either convenience orperformance priorities.

For cost, marketing and security reasons, few boat owners or boat buyerswill accept the idea that a monohull sailboat does not lose a criticalmargin of safety if its design does not include a backstay.Consequently, unconventional rigs, those having no rigging wireswhatever, or having forward and lateral rigging wire but no backstay,are not a viable option for designers and builders of sailboats for themainstream market.

The Present State of the Art: The Mainsails of Most Boat are too Small

Larger mainsails could make possible smaller, more easily handled,task-specific headsails only, but the permanent backstay found on nearlyall existing sailboats precludes larger mainsails. This is unfortunate,particularly in view of the following:

“Many sailors don't want to exert themselves sheeting in largeheadsails. During last fall's boat shows we couldn't help but notice thenumber of boats [that] offered standard with self-tacking jibs . . . . Amodern [light or medium displacement] boat can sail quite nicely with alarge mainsail and [100%] working jib” (Practical Sailor, May 15, 2000).

The above statement confirms a renewal of interest in self-tackingconvenience and also sailors' ongoing dissatisfaction with undersizedmainsails and cumbersome long-footed furling genoas.

The Present State of the Art: Most Boat Owners Favor Convenience andSafety Priorities

A majority of today's boat owners would choose the convenience ofself-tacking headsails if such sails could adequately meet a wide rangeof conditions, and if the convenience and safety of deploying, reefing,and recovering such sails rivaled that of furling sails. Ideally,short-handed sailors want only two easily-used sails that enable highaverage boat speed and low crew effort and risk regardless ofconditions. In that context, hoisted self-tacking sails could regainmarket share from costly furling configurations if only the hoistedconfigurations could be easily deployed, reefed, and recovered from aboat's cockpit.

The Present State of the Art: Design Assumptions

Contemporary sail designers still assume that:

-   1. Predetermined, universal maximum roach parameters for working    sails of conventionally rigged sailboats are unfeasible;-   2. Boats with small working jibs require supplementary furling    headsails or free flying sails to meet light air and offwind sailing    requirements;-   3. Hoisted self-tacking headsails have no potential for regaining    market share lost to furling headsail configurations;-   4. Hoisted headsails can never be truly versatile or convenient; and-   5. “Overlapping sail” and “self-tacking sail” are mutually exclusive    sail properties.

The above assumptions have perpetuated triangular working sails,requiring boat owners to buy multiple headsails to meet changingconditions, or to “get by” with a single long-footed genoa with port andstarboard sheets. In no way have boat owners been liberated from theinefficiency and handling difficulties of long-footed genoas,underpowered mainsails, or free flying headsails.

Prior Art: Detailed Analysis 1980 to Date

In summary, furling gear appears on most contemporary sailboats whilefree flying sails are found on few shorthanded sailboats as ownersrealize that they cannot use such sails frequently. The unrelentingtriangular two-dimensional profile of working sails still makes themunsuitable for a wide range of conditions. Detailed examination of priorart follows with a view to identifying the reasons for theunavailability of versatile working sails and to identifying:

-   1. what prior art has taught, explicitly or implicitly, about    two-dimensional profiles for working sails;-   2. what prior art has not taught or even implied about    two-dimensional profiles for working sails.

The following detailed analysis of sail design history addresses“conventionally rigged sailboats”. That term as well as others isexplained below for reasons of precision and reader convenience.Notwithstanding, a person skilled in the subject matter of the presentcause, or a “skilled sailmaker”, would be familiar with each of thoseterms.

The Prior Art: Detailed Analysis The Shortcomings of Triangular Sails:1925 to Date

Triangular sails produce a maximum of aerodynamic drag and heel.Although they are typically thirty-percent smaller than counterpartsemi-elliptical sails, triangular sails induce more heel, thus making aboat harder to control, uncomfortable, and eventually unsafe. Also,triangular sails twist easily, compromising efficiency.

“A long, slender elliptical airplane wing has . . . little or no twist.A triangular sail is opposite in all respects. It is relatively short,and it twists, . . . lowering its effective height . . . . Twist makesstubby rigs out of tall rigs.”

“The wings [of] any aeroplane or great sea bird in flight arebeautifully designed, with no twist at all, or very little. Birds andairplanes have wings that respond dynamically to changing conditions,wings that can flex and that are ideally shaped. (Bethwaite, PerformanceSailing, Performance Marine, p. 199 (1993).

Designers Considered Semi-elliptical Working Sails Unfeasible: 1925 toDate

Since 1925 designers have ignored semi-elliptical working sails,dismissing them as unfeasible on both theoretical and practical levels.A leading sail designer expressed this position in a widely read book onsail design:

“[Headsail battens] are unseamanlike appendages if they have to comeinto contact with the mast or shrouds when tacking . . . . There is nopoint in trying to build up a roach on the leech of . . . a [head]sail,because this would defeat its own object. The extra cloth would probablycause the leech to foul the mast, which in turn would break the battens.If a greater area is desired in a headsail which is tall and narrow, itis better to draw the clew further aft, so that it overlaps the mast andthe sail achieves a lower aspect ratio.” (Sails, pp. 87-88, JeremyHoward-Williams, Adlard Coles Limited, (1974)).

Mr. Howard-Williams also wrote that battens couldn't support a largemainsail roach in upwind conditions. He reasoned that it was better touse a smaller mainsail and regain needed sail area by resort tolong-footed genoas and free flying downwind sails. Hisperformance-oriented assumptions would continue to encumber headsail andmainsail design for the foreseeable future.

Thus did a leading 1970's sail designer further entrench three saildesign assumptions:

-   1. Standing headsails should not have a roach;-   2. The best way to increase the power of a standing headsail was to    lengthen its foot, and-   3. Large mainsail roach was a poor way to gain sail area.

Rig Overlap and Sailboat Geometry: 1980 to Date

In an era of easily broken wooden battens, increased sail area wasachievable only by resort to long-footed triangular genoas, tallermasts, and free flying sails. Unfortunately, lengthening a headsail'sfoot made it harder to handle and materially deteriorated its interfacewith a companion mainsail. In addition, with each tack or jibe, howeverskillfully performed, a long-footed overlapping genoa and its sheetsviolently chafe across a boat's mast and rigging.

Tall masts were not cost-effective, and costly free-flying sails wereunsuitable for boats sailed shorthanded by average sailors. Nonetheless,designers clung to old assumptions about roach size, rig overlap, andthe feasibility of cockpit control for hoisted sails.

Predetermined Maximum Roach Overlap Parameters: 1980 to Date

For sail designers, a conventionally rigged sailboat was a hullencumbered by a cage of spars and wires that absolutely precludedoverlapping mainsails and overlapping self-tacking headsails. Thus, themainsails and self-tacking headsails of conventionally rigged sailboatsuniformly passed clear of companion permanent backstays and masts,respectively.

Boat builder Steve Dashew's accidental experiment with overlappingmainsail roach only served to convince him that predetermined roachoverlap parameters were unfeasible. Mr. Dashew's conclusion reflecteddesign assumptions that unrelentingly condemned a majority of existingsailboats to underpowered mainsails and long-footed triangular genoas.Those assumptions similarly precluded the discovery of hoisted,self-tacking sails that could reconcile optimum performance with optimumsafety and performance.

Detailed Analysis: Hoisted Working Jibs and Rigid External Spars: 1980to Date

In 1980, alternately tensioned port and starboard sheets were thedominant headsail control configuration. Most boat owners had replacedconvenient self-tacking configurations with overlapping furling genoasthat imposed alternately tensioning and releasing port and starboardsheets. Self-tacking headsails, particularly those set from rigid jibspars, had also fallen into disuse, such configurations being usefulonly in wind speeds above fifteen knots. Subsequent efforts to reviveinterest in self-tacking jibs would have little success due to theperformance limitations of available, triangular sails; theirinconvenience, and the cost, complexity and danger of companion rigidjib booms.

The Bierig Rigid External Spar 1985

One attempt to revive interest in external jib spars is seen in U.S.Pat. No. 4,503,796 to Bierig (1985): The Bierig patent covers a curved,rigid half-wishbone that rotates inside a large sleeve sewn to a sail.The patent argues that flexible battens break easily whereas a rigidspar will not. Experience proved the contrary. After an initialbreakage, the owner of Freedom Boats in the United Kingdom was obligedto replace the cumbersome curved Bierig spar on his own boat and carry asecond one on deck as a precaution against recurrent breakage. Thus dida wishbone far more substantial than a Bierig spar break in use, belyingthe idea that a rigid spar was, a priori, more reliable than semi-rigidbattens. Semi-rigid battens such as those ultimately used on the presentinvention existed and were well-known at the time the Bierig patentissued.

Interestingly, the freestanding masts of Freedom boats had no riggingwires whatever, thus presenting an ideal configuration for anoverlapping mainsail or headsail. Even though a positive-roach headsailwould have had only the Freedom boat's mast to cross when tacking andjibing, jibs on single-mast Freedoms were tiny, underpowered triangularones that cleared companion masts comfortably. Thus, even in the case ofa boat with no rigging wires, a positive-roach jib was never considered.

The Freedom rig, which would have presented minimum obstruction totacking and jibing an overlapping headsail, never suggested to designersthat an overlapping headsail might be possible. Old assumptions stillcontrolled sailboat design, and any departure from those assumptions wasanything but obvious.

Nowhere did Bierig suggest that the aft end of a sail could overlap aboat's rig. In fact, Bierig neither depicted nor described rigging wiresat all in its text or drawings. In Bierig's FIG. 8, the rigid Bierigspar leading diagonally upwards from the clew of the mainsail is longerthan the sail's foot. The patent promised that the mainsail could belowered with the aid of jackline 51. This is unlikely in theory andunfeasible in real sailing conditions.

At best the sail could have been lowered on a model boat. On a real boatin real sailing conditions a mainsail must quickly and easily assume areefed or lowered configuration that threatens neither crew nor gear.Once lowered partially or entirely, the mainsail configuration seen inBierig's FIG. 8 would not be firmly attached to the mast. Consequently,the sail would flail dangerously, threatening crewmembers, quicklydestroying the mainsail and its spar. In no way could the depicted sailbe reefed or lowered safely. The sail would be safe only in a loweredconfiguration, and even then, only after crew had gone forward to securethe sail and spar: a dangerous and inconvenient prospect at best.

Nowhere did Bierig suggest that its rigid spar might lead downwards fromit clew to the boat's mast. Revealing the impracticality of his claims,in FIG. 13, Bierig resorted to a conventional horizontal boom, thusdropping the pretense that a diagonal Bierig spar could control amainsail's foot in real sailing conditions. In fact, the Bierig spar wasnever intended to be functional with mainsails. Mainsail claims includedin Bierig would not have worked in real sailing conditions, and theyhave not been reduced to practice. Accordingly, Bierig taught nothingabout mainsails other than the fact that the Bierig invention waslimited to headsails.

The series of heavy, cumbersome Bierig spars shown in the upper part ofthe sail of FIG. 13 would prevent safely and easily raising, reefing, orlowering the sail and would be dangerous to crewmembers during any suchmaneuver. Simply stated, the Bierig spar, as shown in the patent wouldnot work for controlling a mainsail even in the best of conditions.

While Bierig addressed the convenience of self-tacking, non-overlappingjibs, the patent disclosed nothing relevant to overlapping ones. In thefinal analysis, the subject matter of Bierig was a rigid spar. Bierigreplaced supposedly unusable semi-rigid battens with a rigid spar,reasoning that battens were nonfunctional for booming a sail whereas theBierig rigid spar was.

Contrarily, Applicant's unique semi-rigid batten configurationseliminate rigid external spars including the Bierig spar for specificreasons discussed below, thus presenting a first reason why the priorart pertinent to rigid spars in no way affects patentability ofApplicant's system.

Bierig specifically stated that full-length battens could not control asail in either heavy or light air. conditions (see Bierig, p. 1, lines26-44; p. 2, lines 14-26). As seen below, Applicant's thousands of testmiles in widely varying conditions have proven the contrary.

Bierig substituted rigid spars for battens, stating,

“For full length battens, we can now use pre-curved rigid spars insteadof battens” (p. 3 lines 17-18.

In part, the new and unexpected results produced by Applicant's Systemare generated by Applicant's unexpected use of new semi-rigid battenconfigurations, and in part by universally compatible predeterminedmaximum roach parameters. Each System sail embodiment employs andembodiment of such batten configurations and complies with thosepredetermined parameters. Those parameters have heretofore beenconsidered unfeasible. Bierig neither teaches nor infers anythingconcerning predetermined roach overlap parameters or rig overlap forworking sails:

“A further advantage [of the rigid Bierig spar] is that sails with largeroach (convex curvature of the after edge) can be more easily controlledand put less demanding loads on the sailcloth.”

The use of the term “large roach” in Bierig taught nothing aboutpredetermined maximum roach parameters. Nor did Bierig disclose or implyanything whatever about rig overlap. A concerns leech control andsailcloth loads, Bierig taught nothing beyond the well-known artpertinent to conventional wishbone spars. The subject matter of Bierigpertained to a pivoting half-wishbone without the slightest pertinenceto rig overlap at the back end of a sail or predetermined maximum roachparameters. Moreover, much of what Bierig claimed would not be possiblein real sailing conditions, particularly as concerns mainsails.

Bierig presented small variations on well-known external wishbonedevices; it promised to revive commercial interest in a rarely useddevice; and it occupied a crowded classification. Bierig spars stillappear on a few boats to control underpowered triangular jibs. Thecomplexity, fragility and cost of the spars have limited theircommercial success.

The Hoyt Rigid External Spar 1995

A second effort to revive interest in rigid external jib spars appearedin U.S. Pat. No. 5,463,969 to Hoyt (1995). A rigid Hoyt boom costs morethan a Bierig spar, provides fewer control functions, and imposes majorstructural changes to a boat's deck and invasion of its below-deckspace.

Purchase and installation costs and the inefficiency of companiontriangular jibs limited the commercial potential of both the Bierig andHoyt spars. Despite self-tacking convenience, the Hoyt boom failed toresolve the following shortcomings in conjunction with hoisted sails:

-   1. High cost and encumbrance of heavy external jib spars;-   2. Inadequate sail area in wind speeds of less than fifteen knots;-   3. Difficult, risky on-deck deployment, reefing and recovery    maneuvers.

Detailed Analysis: Hoisted Mainsails and Rigid External Spars 1980 toDate The Two Most Recent Developments in Sailboat-related Prior Art BothReemphasized that Overlapping, Semi-elliptical Sails for ConventionallyRigged Sailboats were Unimaginable

As seen below, Applicant reviewed a diversity of patents, all of whichconfirmed that his invention is unobvious. Some of those patents have“reverse relevance”. That is, they recite that the subject matter ofApplicant's invention is either unobvious, or they ignore that subjectmatter altogether, or the explicitly deem that subject matter asunfeasible and inconceivable. A review of such patents is justifiable inorder to describe a historical context of prior art that precluded thefeasibility of Applicant's invention.

Two innovative designers created the Bierig Spar, the Freedom boatseries, and the Hoyt boom, yet neither of those designers ever eveninferred that hoisted, self-tacking overlapping headsails or mainsailswere feasible. Indeed, the Freedom boats, having no rigging wireswhatever, might have provided a forum for overlapping headsails. No suchsails have ever appeared. The Bierig spar explicitly denied thefeasibility of booming a sail with battens, thus reiterating theabove-mentioned design assumptions, which continue to preclude suchsails. Examination of the Hoyt patent reveals Mr. Hoyt's acceptance ofprevailing design assumptions precluding hoisted, self-tackingoverlapping headsails or mainsails.

A detailed review of these areas of prior art is justifiable in that itreveals that patents issued in arguably related classifications aresilent on the subject of hoisted, self-tacking overlapping headsails ormainsails. Beyond silence, those patents actually preclude such sails,once again reinforcing long-standing design assumptions.

1. FREE STANDING MASTS HAVING NO RIGGING WIRES: By 1980, manufacturersof such boats, including Freedom Boats were using hoisted mainsails withonly modest positive roach. Despite the fact that their designs hadeliminated rigging wire, notably permanent backstays, Freedom designerstook no initiative to optimize even mainsails, let alone headsails. Thusboats with free standing masts initially used two masts to achieveadequate sail area and later added single-mast versions with minimaltriangular jibs.

A newfound interest in freestanding rigs did nothing by way of inducingthe appearance of optimized mainsails or headsails, thus proving thatsuch sails were considered unfeasible even in the most favorablecontext, one void of rigging wires. Clearly, if optimized mainsails andmore so, optimized headsails were entirely unimaginable to designers ofboats with no rigging wires whatever, such sails were even lessconceivable to designers of conventionally rigged sailboats with a fullcomplement of rigging wires.

2. FUNCTIONAL BOOM FURLING TECHNOLOGY: By 1990 functional furling boomshad appeared, marking a significant point in the history of sailhandling equipment and also marking the most recent point, historically,in sailboat-related prior art. Furling boom technology targetedconvenience-oriented boat owners with its apparent furling ease and alsotargeted performance-oriented owners with their booms' ability to furlfull-batten mainsails.

-   1. Why did furling boom technology, with its ability to furl fully    battened sails, never even suggest a possible deployment of    optimized mainsails or headsails by means of a boom furling    mechanism? First, the mechanisms themselves in no way enable or    relate to roach size or geometry. Second, the designers of such    booms and sails for them were happy with their not inconsiderable    achievement. Third, the mechanisms themselves exhibit diverse    incompatibilities with optimized sail form and dimensions. Fourth,    for functional, cost and safety reasons, furling booms are far too    heavy to be considered for use with headsails. Finally, the historic    assumptions that had thus far prevented designers from conceiving    optimized mainsails and headsails for conventionally rigged boats    dominated design thinking in 1990 and still do.-   2. Because they were costly, and because they offered no clear,    overwhelming performance or sail-handling advantages over alternate    sail-handling configurations, furling booms have not enjoyed major    market proliferation, as did mast-furling configurations. This    phenomenon further proved that the market demands convenience and    safety above all, and that it was cost conscious even where    performance priorities are concerned.-   3. In fact, furling boom technology did not pertain in any way to    sail shape or rig overlap. Going even further, designers of furling    booms and sails for them clearly deemed overlapping mainsail roach    incompatible with furling boom function. Furling boom designers    ignored entirely two basic and powerful market and feasibility    issues:    -   A. Could a sail deployment system ever combine the functional        and economic advantages of furling configurations and hoisted        sail configurations while accommodating a sail with a        maximum-size roach, or an “Optimized” mainsail?    -   B. Were predetermined maximum roach overlap parameters for        conventionally rigged sailboats feasible?-   6. Quite obviously, furling boom designers ignored the feasibility    of optimized headsails because their products were in no way    appropriate for use with headsails set at the front of a boat from a    forestay. More significantly, furling boom designers ignored equally    any possibility that optimized mainsails might be deployable by a    furling boom. Once again, as in the case of free-standing masts,    even the appearance of a favorable context failed to produce designs    for optimized mainsails. Clearly, the latest, most favorably    disposed functional concepts did nothing to induce even speculation    that optimized sails for conventionally rigged boats might one day    be feasible.    -   Such sails were as inconceivable on a practical level as they        were in 1925 when Manfred Curry discovered the theoretical        advantages of elliptical sail form. The foregoing statement is        confirmed both by manufacturer's specific instructions to sail        makers and secondly by underlying furling boom patents.    -   First, where manufacturers' instructions did set mainsail roach        limits, such limits related exclusively to a boom's mechanical        functions such as the fore and aft location of furling claws,        requiring roach curves that coincided with furling claw        location. In all cases, such instructions set limits well inside        any that might have been posed by any consideration relative to        a companion permanent backstay.    -   By way of example, a sampling of boom furling patents reveals        that each such patent exclusively addresses only the front end        of a mainsail, and that leech geometry, roach size, and rig        overlap have never been relevant topics in furling boom prior        art.

Deployment, Reefing and Recovery of Hoisted Working Sails: 1980 to Date

-   1. Lowering or reefing an externally boomed, hoisted mainsail or jib    was difficult and dangerous. By 1980 improved reefing for hoisted    mainsails had appeared, but not for hoisted headsails. Because    reefing hoisted jibs was dangerous and ineffective, such sails were    obsolete by 1980 having been replaced by headsail furling    configurations. Notwithstanding, the benefits of this phenomenon    would be questioned almost immediately due to diverse deficiencies    in furling sail design as well as designs for the furling gear,    itself.-   2. Furling genoas proved only marginally satisfactory as a heavy    weather alternative to multiple hoisted headsails. Nonetheless, a    majority of boat owners chose furling genoas, accepting compromised    performance in exchange for safety and ease of use.-   3. Mainsail deployment, reefing, and recovery has been facilitated    by Lazy Jacks and Dutchman configurations, which are vertical lines    that control a mainsail during deployment, reefing, and recovery    maneuvers.

Topping Lifts and Vertical Deployment Control Lines: 1980 to Date

-   1. A “Topping lift” is a line running from a boom's aft end to a    point just below a boat's masthead that prevents the aft end of a    sailboat's boom from falling to the deck.-   2. Lazy jacks” are paired lines running upwards from a boat's boom    to a point near its mast along either side of a companion mainsail.    Lazy Jacks contain mainsail during deployment, reefing, or recovery.    Lazy jacks are notorious for snagging a sail's battens during    hoisting maneuvers, thus being inconvenient, even dangerous in    difficult conditions or confined quarters.-   3. U.S. Pat. No. 4,688,506 to Van Breems (1987) introduced a sail    deployment control System that combined a topping lift and vertical    lines running through eyelets in a sail to prevent flogging during    sail handling maneuvers and to automatically fold or “flake” a    mainsail as it is reefed or lowered. Unlike lazy jack lines,    Dutchman lines run through a sail to avoid snagging battens as the    sail is hoisted. Both Systems have been widely used for mainsails,    but most sailors have chosen lazy jacks, which are easier to install    and do not require punching a series of holes in a mainsail.

In a subsequent section Applicant will describe the present invention,which can use either the Dutchman or Lazy Jack system as a componentpart of the invention. It is appropriate at this point to state thatApplicant will make no proprietary claim to either of those devices, norwill he make any claim to any other individual device used in buildingthe invention of the present Application. As examples, Applicant willmake no proprietary claims to a patented type of sailcloth or sailhardware item.

Market Potential for Hoisted Working Headsails: 1980 to Date

By 1980 furling configurations had replaced most hoisted jibs except forracing applications. Hoisted working jibs were considered hard-to-use,fatally underpowered sails with no further functional or commercialpotential.

Segregated Performance and Convenience Priorities as a MarketingStrategy: 1980 to Date

For a certain time, segregated design priorities enabled sailmakers tosell five sails instead of two to performance-oriented boat owners, andto sell furling configurations to convenience-oriented ones. However,owners progressively came to understand that sail area gained via freeflying sails imposed more than an acceptable measure of work and risk,and that furling configurations hardly satisfied a wide range ofconditions. In response, sailmakers and boat builders intensifiedpromotion of tall mast configurations, or “tall rigs” to gain sail area.However, tall rigs were costly and did not meet market or functionaldemands satisfactorily.

Tall Rigs Cannot Alter the Inefficiency of Triangular Sails: 1980 toDate

“Tall rigs” add weight aloft, which impose major structuralmodifications to a boat's deck and perhaps to its ballast and,consequently, major increases in boat cost. In addition, a taller mastinterferes with a boat's passage under bridges. At a minimum, the costof a new mast and rigging represents an important percentage of a boatsoriginal cost.

Raising the small, drag-inducing head area of a triangular sail to ahigher wind zone may have a minimal performance benefit, but not onethat most boat owners consider justifiable. In the final analysis, theperformance-reducing turbulence and the heel-inducing effect oftriangular sails is inescapable regardless of mast height.

Tall Rigs have not Proven Cost Efficient: 1980 to Date

Tall rigs are found on less than 5% of existing sailboats because theirlimited practical benefit does not justify their cost for a predominanceof boat owners.

Reference Calender

1925: Manfred Curry identified the elliptical distribution of force overa sail as ideal for minimizing heeling forces while obtaining maximumforward drive, or optimum performance. (Aerodynamics of Sails and theArt of Winning Races, Collection Biblio Voile, 1925)).

1940: By WWII, elliptical airplane wings exemplified by the BritishSpitfire were common, whereas elliptical sails for boats remainedtheoretical.

1945: Postwar designers segregated “racing performance” and “cruisingconvenience” objectives. The primary postwar design obstacle would beachieving increased sail area within the confines of conventionalsailboat rig configurations.

1960: Progressively, racing technology such as powerful winches,aluminum spars, and lighter sailcloth began to “cross over” to cruising,enabling smaller crews to manage more sail area with less effort.

1975: Mainsail and headsail furling devices had enabled cockpit-controlof inefficient triangular working sails. Designers would promotelong-footed genoas and free flying sails to compensate for theshortcomings of available working sails.

1980: External jib booms had fallen into disuse. Furling headsailsdominated the headsail market, replacing hoisted headsails except wherespecified by racing rules,

1985: Full batten non-overlapping hoisted mainsails appeared as did thefirst functional in-boom furling devices.

1990: Various in-boom furling devices appeared, but they could notaccommodate large-roach mainsails. No furling boom design addressedmaximum rig overlap.

2004: Cockpit-controlled, hoisted, overlapping self-tackingsemi-elliptical sails for all-condition sailing remained inconceivablefor even the most knowledgeable boat owners, sail makers and marinearchitects.

Sail Design for the Twenty-first Century

“Universally compatible Optimized” sails remain unavailable; indeed,unimaginable, as designers persistently segregate performance andconvenience objectives.

“Sail System design” is still only an exotic term, and the turbulencegenerated by triangular working sails excludes optimum working sailinterface.

Sail Design for the Twenty-first Century Available Hoisted Working SailDesigns

Available hoisted working sails for conventionally rigged boats consistof:

-   -   A. Underpowered triangular jibs, or, as a compromised        substitute, long-footed, overlapping triangular furling genoas,        and    -   B. Triangular or small-roach full-batten mainsails.

Sail Design for the Twenty-first Century: Unavailable Working SailDesigns

As seen above, prior art infers nothing concerning Optimized workingsails, and designers continue to ignore the following design objectivesaltogether, or to regard them as unfeasible:

-   1. Cockpit-controlled, hoisted all-condition, self-boomed,    self-vanged Optimized working sails that impose no modification to    boat or rig;-   2. Hoisted mainsails and self-tacking jibs that reconcile optimum    convenience, safety, and performance;-   3. Overlapping self-tacking hoisted headsails and mainsails;-   4. Reliable predetermined roach overlap parameters for Optimized    headsails and mainsails;-   5. Optimum interface yielding synergism between working sails;-   6. Self-boomed semi-elliptical hoisted sails to lower boat cost for    boat buyers and increase profit for boat builders; and-   7. A sail System that reduces operating costs for commercial users.

SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

In accordance with the present invention, a universally compatibleSystem of hoisted Optimized working sails for conventionally riggedsailboats comprising new combinations and new uses of known and newmaterials and concepts.

System-specific Terminology

Although a skilled sailmaker would have no problem understanding andusing the following terms, they are set forth below for reasons ofprecision and reader convenience:

-   -   1. A “semi-elliptical sail” is a sail having a linear leading        edge and an approximately elliptical trailing edge.    -   2. “System” denotes the embodiments and ramifications of the        present invention.    -   3. An Optimized sail is a semi-elliptical sail that conforms to        predetermined roach overlap parameters that reconcile the        greatest possible rig-compatible-sail-area with the most        efficient possible leech curve.    -   4. “predetermined maximum roach overlap parameters” denote        parameters for predictably assigning the following properties to        a sail:        -   A. reliable tacking and jibing;        -   B. maximum feasible sail area; and        -   C. an approximately elliptical leech curve.    -   5. “Maxmain” denotes an Optimized mainsail:    -   6. “Maxjib” denotes an Optimized headsail;    -   7. “Optimized working sails” denotes a Maxjib and Maxmain        combination;    -   8. “overlapping” and “non-overlapping” are terms describing the        relationship between a sail's leech and a companion rig element.    -   9. A non-overlapping Maxjib is a headsail whose approximately        elliptical leech contacts neither a companion mast nor companion        rigging while tacking and jibing.    -   10. An overlapping Maxjib is a headsail whose approximately        elliptical leech does contact a companion mast or rigging while        tacking and jibing.    -   11. An overlapping Maxmain is an Optimized mainsail whose        approximately elliptical leech contacts a companion permanent        backstay while tacking and jibing.    -   12. A “self-boomed System” sail is one whose foot is held in        horizontal extension by the sail's System batten or batten        substitute layout rather than an external spar.    -   13. A “self-vanged” sail is one whose System batten or batten        substitute layout, as opposed to an external spar/vang        combination, resists upward movement as the sail's sheet is        eased.    -   14. “Counterpart” triangular and semi-elliptical sails have        identical foot and luff lengths but different leech profiles.

Repetitive Identification Numbers

The drawings of the present cause, “the drawings”, in combination withits Specification and claims, describe the System in detail sufficientto enable a skilled sailmaker to make and use the System. In theinterest of clarity, where many identical parts appear in a drawing,only exemplary reference numbers are used. For example, FIG. 1 showsonly an exemplary number of Dutchman eyelets 69 and Dutchman verticalcontrol lines 72 in order to avoid an excess of reference numerals,which would mitigate clarity.

System Design Objectives

The System reduces to practice the following objectives:

-   -   1. Cockpit-controlled working sails that eliminate on-deck sail        handling, costly sail inventories, and below-deck sail stowage.    -   2. Optimized self-boomed, self-vanged positive roach working        sails compatible with the rig elements of any sailboat.    -   3. Elimination of rigid external spars as well as new,        unexpected embodiments for use with rigid external spars,        according to boat owner preference;    -   4. Working sails with fully integrated deployment, single-line        reefing, and recovery functions.    -   5. Predetermined maximum roach overlap parameters enabling        universally compatible, overlapping mainsails and self-tacking        headsail without modification to boat or rig.    -   6. Optimum interface between a boat's working sails;    -   7. New combinations of existing batten and sailcloth technology        that enable lighter batten configurations or, alternatively,        batten free sails.    -   8. Cost efficient alternatives to tall rig configurations; and    -   9. A new form of sail power that was neither taught nor        anticipated by the prior art.

Prior Art Ignored the Possiblity of Hoisted, Overlapping Self-tackingHeadsails and Mainsails

Since furling booms represent the most recent use of hoisted sails, aclose review of furling boom patents and other publications concerningfurling booms is particularly revealing as concerns whether prior artaddresses specific leech parameters and rig overlap. Furling booms canaccommodate full-length horizontal mainsail battens, and they pretend torival the convenience of in-mast furling devices, which cannotaccommodate such battens.

The fact that a sail has full-length battens in no way addressesspecific leech parameters or rig overlap. For example, it is possiblefor a triangular mainsail to have full-length battens, but it isgeometrically impossible for the leech of a triangular mainsail sail tohave a convex leech, let alone a leech that overlaps a companionpermanent backstay. Therefore, the fact that a patent may referencebattens in no way mandates that such a patent pertains to specific leechcurve geometry, rig overlap, or rig compatibility.

Furling Boom Manufacturer's Instructions to Sail Makers

Furling boom manufacturer's instruction to sail makers as well as therelated patents are examined immediately below with a view to exposingthe total body of furling boom prior art, not just the patentsthemselves. Those instructions provide manufacturer-specific mainsailroach limits relating only to a boom's interior volume and mechanicalfeatures. Such proscriptions dictate a minimal mainsail roach that wouldinevitably fall “inside” of a companion permanent backstay.

“Super-high-roach mainsails are therefore not suited forin-boom-furling.” (Mc Geary, Cruising World, October 2000).

Furling boom manufacturers restrict mainsail roach to a percentage of“E”, or usable boom length, which bears no relationship whatever to aboat's permanent backstay. The end of a boat's boom may be well removedfrom its backstay at the level of the boom-end.

Furthermore, varying boom lengths can be used for a given boat, thuspresenting various “E” measurements relative to a boat's permanentbackstay. Accordingly, “E” is not pertinent to predetermined parametersfor leech shape or rig overlap.

A sail making manual for a recently introduced furling boom recites amaximum roach limit of 25% of “E”, stating that “The P [maximum hoist ofthe luff of a mainsail] and E [horizontal distance from the aft surfaceof mast to mainsail clew] are rig measurements and the sail must fitwithin these parameters.” (Schaeffer sail making guide, 2001). Referenceto a boat's permanent backstay is notably absent from the text of thismanual.

Another recently introduced furling boom's sail making manual limitsmainsail roach to “the lesser of either 20% of “E” [horizontal distancefrom a mast's aft surface to a mainsail's clew] or 10% of the leechlength,” (Furlboom sail making manual p. 13, revision 010212 RBS), thusspecifically excluding a mainsail roach that overlapped a sail'spermanent backstay.

Furling Boom Manufacturers Reiterate that Boom Furling Mainsail ShapeRelates to a Boom's Interior Volume and I Mechanical Features: 1990 toDate

Manufacturers' responses to Applicant's furling boom inquiriesinvariably made clear that neither rig overlap nor elliptical leech formwere pertinent furling boom design issues. To the contrary,manufacturers took pains to preclude large roach mainsails in order toavoid mechanical problems attributable to excessive luff friction.

What furling boom manufacturers did consider relevant was how a furlingboom's mechanism interacted with the luff of its companion mainsail andwhether the sail's furled volume fit into the boom. Limits on roach sizepertained uniquely to a boom's furling capacity. Neither specific leechform nor rig overlap was a relevant consideration. Furling boommanufacturers were content to look no further than specifying a boomthat passed clear a boat's permanent backstay and furled a companionmainsail that might or might have a nondescript roach.

The relationship between a boat's permanent backstay and the leech ofits mainsail never concerned furling boom manufacturers. Exemplaryresponses to Applicant inquiries follow. Those responses establish thatfurling boom manufacturers view predictable rig overlap as extraneous tothe subject matter of their booms' operation:

-   A. “I've spoken with our Lead Engineer regarding your many    questions. Basically, our feeling is that the only limiting factor    on roach is twofold:    -   1. Getting the sail past the backstay    -   2. Keeping the battens parallel to the foot of the sail to allow        proper furling. (Schaefer Marine correspondence with Applicant,        Oct. 24, 2001)-   B. “To begin with, our sails can allow a maximum roach of 20% of    “E”. This roach has to be evenly distributed along the leech. (read,    no fathead as in an America's Cup or Race Multihull sail.) The    reason for this is twofold. First, the sail must fit inside our    internal claw and roller assembly. Second, as you stated, the    compression of “fat head” roach tends to add too much unnecessary    friction to the System. “On our test boat, a Newport 41, we have    about four inches of overlap . . . in [the lightest conditions] we    have to bang on the backstay to clear it.” (Furlboom correspondence    with Applicant, Oct. 15, 2001)    -   “Furlboom's roach is the most generous in the industry. The        maximum roach is described in the Sail Making Instructions.        Furlboom is tapered so it is important that the sail roll        forward somewhat evenly or the volume at the aft end of the sail        becomes too large for the boom shell.” (Furlboom correspondence        with Applicant, Oct. 24, 2001)    -   Thus, even the most recently introduced furling boom designs        restrict maximum roach according to interior boom volume and        usable boom length. A Percentage of usable boom length bears no        relation to whether a sail's leech will tack or jibe across a        companion rig element of a boat's rig. A four-inch roach on a        forty-one foot boat is negligible in the context of large-roach        mainsails.    -   A percentage of usable boom length neither prescribes nor        suggests an elliptical or any other specific leech curve form.        Banging on a boat's backstay to clear a nondescript four-inch        mainsail roach confirms assumptions that furling boom        manufacturers consider jibing and tacking a mainsail with any        backstay overlap, however small, as a hit-and-miss proposition.    -   In this context, furling boom manufacturers and designers        obviously consider predetermined maximum roach overlap        parameters unfeasible. In the final analysis, furling boom        manufacturers have no desire or intention to consider issues        beyond the function of their products.-   C. “Back to your backstay overlap [question], it is really more a    question of wear and tear on your leech as it scrapes on the    backstay . . . . I can not even guess what the maximum percentage of    overlap can be so I will have to leave that to a sail maker. As long    as you don't exceed our maximum roach limitations, getting your    battens around the backstay is up to you.” (Furlboom correspondence    with Applicant, Oct. 15, 2001)

Reliable predetermined maximum roach overlap parameters are asunimaginable to sailmakers as they are to boom manufacturers. Even lessconceivable is the idea that contact between a mainsail and a permanentbackstay might result in a performance benefit as opposed to “wear andtear”.

Furling Boom Patents Preclude Large Roach Mainsails: 1990 to Date

Functionally, the increased batten length of a larger mainsail roachimpedes furling boom operation by increasing forward batten pressureagainst a sail's mast track. As seen above, furling boom manufacturerspreclude mainsail roach that might interfere with the smooth functioningof their respective products. Quite naturally, furling boom patentsavoid self-defeating elements, notably friction-inducing roachspecifications that might exceed a furling boom's operational limits.Simply stated, maximum roach mainsails are the apparent, even obviousenemy of smooth furling boom function.

The specific language of furling boom patents issued during the 1990'sneither teaches nor suggests anything concerning backstay overlap orpredetermined maximum roach parameters. Those patents address only amainsail's leading edge while teaching or suggesting nothing about amainsail's trailing edge.

Marechal Addresses only the Leading Edge of a Mainsail

Furling booms promised two advantages over rival in-mast furlingdevices: first, a boom furling sail can be lowered in the event ofmechanical problems; second, and most important commercially, furlingbooms can use full length battens to minimize mainsail flogging, thusincreasing mainsail life.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,098 (1994) to Marechal covered the use ofsupplementary sail slides at a mainsail's luff. Marechal taught nothingwhatever about the trailing edge of a mainsail. The sail depicted inMarechal might as well have been triangular so long as the boom couldaccept the market-mandated full-length battens. Marechal's text (p. 1,line 52) specifically excludes any possibility that it taught oranticipated anything concerning an overlapping mainsail or rigcompatibility.

“The head and the possible battens of the sail are attached to said luff(emphasis supplied) . . . ”

For Marechal, battens were optional. For a positive roach sail, battens(or batten substitutes) are obligatory. Thus, Marechal taught nothingwhatever about the specifics of mainsail roach or rig compatibility.

Marechal simply allowed that its luff-furling device provided a new andimproved means to furl mainsails. Its text and drawings reveal abattened mainsail of arbitrary form that might as well have had astraight leech or even one that was concave. The text of Marechal wouldhave been equally served had the drawings merely shown an exploded viewof a mainsail that omitted the aft end of the sail altogether.

Nowhere does Marechal depict or describe a boat's rigging wires, notablya permanent backstay. Nor does Marechal ever refer to or identify asail's leech. Contrarily, Marechal did specifically identify itsmainsail's luff, while omitting to identify the sail's leech:

“In accordance with the invention, the luff 7 of the mainsail 3(emphasis supplied) is mounted . . . ” (Marechal, p. 2, line 37-40).

Marechal's failure to identify the sail's leech confirms that the patentdoes not pertain to either roach specifics or rig compatibility.

In FIG. 1, of Marechal, the numeral “3” identifies Marechal's mainsail.The patent reveals no separate identifying number or descriptive textpertaining to a leech of a sail. Had Marechal intended to teach anythingabout a sail's leech, it would have assigned a specific number for thesail's leech, as it did for the sail's luff.

As a corollary, the fact that the patent issued confirms that thepertinent prior art considered leech curve specifics irrelevant to thesubject matter of Marechal, which neither explicitly nor implicitlyrefers in any way to a sail's leech curve.

Marechal cited no prior art that teaches or infers anything whateverconcerning a sail's leech, even as it might concern the functioning ofthe Marechal boom. Nor did Marechal or the referenced prior art suggestthat the either a sail's leech curve or a sail's compatibility with aconventional sailboat rig was pertinent to the subject matter of thepatent.

Had pertinent prior art taught or suggested that either a sail's leechcurve or its rig overlap was relevant and critical to the subject matterof Marechal. Marechal's failure to address and distinguish those issuesfrom its claims would have resulted in a denial of the patent.

Marechal's claimed novelty consisted of a boom for furling a mainsailwith supplementary luff slides attached to its full-length luff tape, asopposed to one having no such supplementary luff slides. The shape ofthe sail furled by the Marechal boom was irrelevant so long as it fitinto the Marechal boom.

Neither Marechal nor the prior art taught or inferred anything about anOptimized mainsail, that is, a semi-elliptical mainsail havingpredetermined maximum roach overlap parameters that overlapped acompanion permanent backstay. In fact, after initial boat showappearance in reduced display form, the Marechal furling boom was notoffered for sale.

Nor did the boom claimed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,098 (1994) to Moessnangever reach the market. Moessnang claimed a boom that furled asupplementary sail slide, suggesting a parallel with Marechal.Nonetheless Moessnang received a patent even though its supplementaryslide was at the companion sail's head and did not furl into the boom.As indicated below, this patent may have issued because it disclosed asmall advance in a crowded category.

Moessnang did not Anticipate any Specific Sail Profile or RigCompatibility

U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,098 (1994) to Moessnang addresses the mechanics torolling a sail into a boom, not a sail. As seen below, the patent issuedfor an advance in the narrow field of furling boom mechanisms withoutregard to the shape of the leech of a companion sail. Moessnangexemplifies furling boom patents that ignored entirely the trailing edgeof a companion mainsail, as did the prior art covered in that patent.Furthermore, Moessnang, like Marechal, neither taught nor inferredanything concerning maximum mainsail roach parameters for conventionallyrigged sailboats, elliptical leech curves or rig compatibility.

The Text of Moessnang Explicitly Confirms that its Subject Matter in noWay Pertainst to a Mainsail's Leech Curve

Neither Moessnang's text nor its drawings specifically described oridentified a mainsail leech or a companion rig. Rather, Moessnangdescribed a mainsail in the abstract, nowhere depicting a sailboat'ssupporting wires, or rigging. As such, the patent mirrored Marechal,teaching and inferring nothing about a mainsail's leech curve, roachdimensions, or rig overlap.

Moessnang's drawings and text each confirmed that neither prior art northe patent, itself, taught or implied anything whatever pertinent to amainsail's leech curve, even as it might concern the claimed furlingboom. FIGS. 1a and 1b depict a boom furling mechanism and an approximateoutline of a mainsail, to which the patent never refers.

FIG. 6 of Moessnang shows a typical full-batten mainsail with a narrowhead, one that could not contact a permanent backstay if surrounded by aproportionally scaled conventional sailboat rig. Nor does the mainsailseen in Moessnang's FIG. 7 infer any specific leech characteristics.That figure concerns only the front end of the sail. The leech curve ofthe sail of FIG. 7 was entirely arbitrary and irrelevant to the patent'sclaims, as was the leech curve shown in Marechal.

As with Marechal, Moessnanag's claims depended exclusively its boom'scapacity to furl a sail's leading edge. The text and drawings of bothpatents ignored entirely the specifics of a mainsail's aft end. No saildescribed or depicted in Marechal or Moessnang reveals or anticipatesanything about maximum roach parameters overlap or rig overlap forconventionally rigged sailboats. In fact, Moessnang's drawings show norig whatever.

Moessnang's text purports to show a “rig” at its FIG. 7, but no rig isshown, only a generic mast, a generic sail, and a boom. No forestay,shrouds or backstay is shown. Thus the word “rig” as used in Moessnangis limited to a boom and companion mast. Since no permanent backstay orspecific leech curve parameter is shown in the drawings or referred toin its text, there is no reason to suppose that Moessnang incorporates,teaches, or implies anything about those subjects. Had the prior artconsidered such subjects pertinent to boom furling art. Moessnang'somission of them would have resulted in denial of the patent.

Moessnang's Deteailed Luff Specification had Specific IdentifyingNumbers Moessnang's Mainsail Leech had no Specific Identifying NumberWhatever

Not only does FIG. 5 of Moessnang assign the number 27 to the luff ofthe depicted mainsail, but it goes further, assigning specific numbersto the physical components of luff 27, namely: boltrope 72, luff tape 74and even assigns a specification for the boltrope: “in the illustratedembodiment the boltrope 72 is manufactured of polyurethane having aShore hardness of 90 in the extrusion method. It has turned out thatthis combination of materials has an optimum stability. (p. 7, lines12-26).

Moessnang could have assigned a number to the leech of the sail depictedin its drawings. It did not. Moessnang could have specified areinforcing tape at the sail's leech to assure the optimum stability anddurability of the leech area of the sail, as is invariably furling boomsail making manuals invariably specify Moessnang disclosed no suchspecification.

Clearly, Moessnang's failure to address the aft end of the depicted sailwas intentional. The aft end of the sail was irrelevant to Moessnang'sclaims. As in Marechal, the leech of the Moessnang mainsail could havebeen omitted entirely from the drawings without affecting the subjectmatter of the patent or the ability of one skilled in the art to makeand use the invention.

At page 9, line 4, Moessnang assigned the number 27 to the mainsail. Nonumber is assigned to the sail's leech. Reference to the sail's leechappears in a context of stress paths at page 9, line 10:

“the direction B (FIG. 7) applied via the leech by the sheet tension . .. .”

In fact, the force controlled by sheet tension is transmitted along thesail's straight clew-to-head line, not along its convex curved leech. Inyet another aspect, the sail's roach is irrelevant for purposes ofMoessnang.

Moessnang's vague description of its mainsail in no way anticipates orteaches whether an overlapping mainsail would be feasible forconventionally rigged sailboats, or whether predetermined parameters forsuch mainsails would be feasible.

“ . . . the mainsail can (emphasis supplied) have a roach, especially inthe top area.” (p1, line 43).

In reciting explicitly that roach was optional, and that roach need notbe evenly distributed along the length of a sail's leech, Moessnangspecifically precludes the relevance of a sail that not only must have aroach, but a roach whose area is limited by a regularly distributedelliptical leech curve:

-   -   1. Necessarily, a semi-elliptical sail that overlapped its        companion permanent backstay would have an evenly distributed        roach, but    -   2. Moessnang explicitly stated that its mainsail did not need        any roach at all. Thus, the Moessnang mainsail leech curve could        have had a linear or even concave profile. The back end of the        Moessnang mainsail and its relation to a boat's rig was entirely        outside the subject matter of Moessnang or the prior art it        referenced.    -   3. The text of Moessnang recited that back end of a sail could        have any form whatever. The Moessnang drawings depict a sail        with an arbitrary shape that bears no relation to a boat's rig        or an elliptical leech curve. The description of drawings refers        to a boat's rig, but only a mast is shown. The patent's “top        heavy” roach description is mutually exclusive of an evenly        distributed elliptical leech curve. Moessnang could not possibly        have taught or inferred anything concerning a semi-elliptical        mainsail with a roach that overlapped a boat's permanent        backstay.

Furthermore, Marechal and Moessnang both disclosed a mainsail thatneeded neither battens nor roach for purposes of their respectiveclaims. Accordingly, neither patent nor the referenced prior art couldpossibly have taught or inferred anything concerning an overlappingsemi-elliptical mainsail, which, by definition, has a roach. Thus,neither Marechal nor Moessnang related in any way to predeterminedmaximum roach overlap parameters, elliptical leech curves or rigoverlap. Rather, the specific language of those patents is pertinent tonone of those sail properties.

Mainsail “1” of Moessnang is an Arbitrary Artists Conception thatRelates only to the Front End of a Mainsail

Moessnang referred to only one mainsail, assigning to it the identifyingnumber 1, yet drawings 1 a, 1 b, 2 a, 6, and 7 show diverse mainsails,each having a different, arbitrary back end. No identifying number for aleech appears anywhere in Moessnang. In fact, the only parts of amainsail that Moessnang does identify specifically are its boltrope 72and its headboard 24.

The issuance of Marechal and Moessnang establishes that maximum roachparameters, elliptical leech curves and rig compatibility wereextraneous to the subject matter of those two patents. The pertinentprior art teaches or suggests nothing about such subjects. Pursuant tothe foregoing analysis, it may be concluded that neither Marechal, norMoessnang, nor the prior art pertinent to either teach or suggestanything concerning the back end of a sail.

Rigid Boom Prior Art Reveals Nothing About Predetermined Parameters forSpecific Leech Shape or Rig Overlap

U.S. Pat. No. 5,463,969 to Hoyt (1995) covered a pedestal-mounted,curved rigid boom that rotated in only a horizontal plane, as opposed toknown designs that had both a vertical and a horizontal articulation.The patent is notable in that it teaches nothing about leech parametersor rig overlap, and that it issued for a small variation on a well-knowndevice.

Pedestal-mounted booms, and socket-mounted “balestron” booms similar tothe Hoyt boom are well-known devices that had fallen into disuse by thetime the Hoyt boom appeared. Accordingly, a Possibility for commercialrevival of an outdated device may have influenced patentability in Hoyt.In addition, since the Hoyt boom was compatible with furling sails, itcould benefit from their long-established market success.

Hoyt identified its sail's luff “42”, but did not identify its sail'sleech. The sail depicted in FIG. 1 is an artist's conception of a smallboat mainsail with partial, not full battens. Neither the patent's textnor its drawings in any way address a sail's leech curve. Since thepatent describes a sailboat that has no rigging, its subject matternecessarily discloses nothing pertinent to rig overlap or the back endof a sail. FIG. 4 of Hoyt omits every part of a sail except its lowerforward corner, yet the patent issued. As in Bierig, Marechal, andMoessnang, Hoyt ignored entirely the back end of its sail; so much sothat Hoyt's FIG. 4 does not even bother to depict the back end of thesail.

Bierig, Hoyt, Marechal, and Moessnang, Each Presented a Small Variationof a Well Known Device in a Crowded Classification

The abovementioned patents have the following common denominators:

-   1. Each issued in a crowded classification;-   1. The claimed inventions differed only slightly from well known    counterparts;-   2. Each issued subsequent to widespread acceptance of convenience    and safety-oriented roller furling configurations;-   3. Each covered an outdated device that had fallen into disuse:    rudimentary around-the-boom mainsail furling booms in the case of    Marechal and Moessnang; symmetrical rigid wishbone spars in the case    of Bierig; and pedestal-mounted jib booms in the case of Hoyt;

Although Bierig, Marechal, Moessnang, and Hoyt presented solutions tolong-standing problems; those solutions were only minor variations onknown devices and concepts. Nonetheless, patents did issue in each case,illustrating the patentability of relatively minor advances in a crowdedclassification.

Each of the abovementioned patents occupied a crowded rigid externalspar classification that is distinct from the sail-power subject matterof the System. Notwithstanding, the present Sail System Applicationpresents patentability issues similar to those underlying issuance inthe above rigid spar patents:

In addition, the market context of the present cause resembles thatwhich preceded issuance of the abovementioned rigid spar patents:

-   -   1. Increasing and ongoing acceptance of convenience and        safety-oriented sail control devices: mainsail and headsail        furling configurations already dominated the market despite        compromised performance;    -   2. Ongoing but unsatisfied demand for an unavailable product; No        available working sail configuration enabled optimum convenience        and safety as well as optimum performance;    -   3. Replacements for outdated devices and concepts are        unavailable: underpowered triangular working jibs and rigid        external jib spars had fallen into disuse despite the        convenience and safety advantages of self-tacking jib        configurations; and    -   4. The present application presents major advances in a crowded        classification. Far beyond the minor advances of the        abovementioned rigid spar patents, Applicant's System introduces        major advances in the art of sail power in contrast to minor        variations on well known rigid boom devices.

The System's Subject Matter Diametrically Opposes Rigid Spar Patents andIntroduces Major Advances in the Art of Sail Power

By definition, rigid spar patents pertain to rigid spars. In sharpcontrast, the System addresses a comprehensive sail power system thateliminates rigid spars. Furthermore, the System introduces majoradvances in a crowded classification including:

-   1. Universally compatible, low-cost Optimized working sails that    imposed no modification to boat or rig;-   2. Predetermined maximum roach overlap parameters;-   3. Self-boomed sails made from presently available sailcloth and    battens; new combinations and uses of known materials and methods    that enabled reduced batten weight and even batten-free sails; and-   4. Overlapping self-tacking sails.

Objects and Advantages of the System Advantages of Optimized HoistedWorking Sails over Triangular Working Sails

-   1. Savings to boat buyers and greater profits to sail makers and    boat builders.-   2. 30% more sail area and 15% less heel on average;-   3. Unique, unexpected overlapping self-tacking headsails that    deliver both optimum performance and optimum convenience across a    wide range of conditions.-   4. A single self-tacking headsail sheet replaces alternately    tensioned port and starboard headsail sheets-   5. A self-tacking sail replaces hard-to-handle long-footed genoas.-   6. Two Optimized cockpit-controlled self-tacking working sails    eliminate on deck sail handling, below-deck sail stowage, expensive    sail inventories, and costly modifications to boat and rig;-   7. Rigid external spars give way to lighter, less costly    self-booming batten configurations;-   8. Ideal interface between working sails;-   9. Low initial cost, no special equipment, no modification to boat    or rig; and-   10. An unexpected cost-effective performance alternative to taller    masts, free flying sails and high crew risk and effort.

Advantages of Self-boomed System Sails: Optimum Convenience and Safety

-   1. 100% cockpit-controlled Self-tacking jib convenience and safety    combined with overlapping elliptical sail area creates an entirely    new class of sail for new-user markets while satisfying existing    demands;-   2. Increased power over small triangular jibs enabling truly    versatile self-tacking working sails without resort to costly, heavy    furling genoa configurations and hard-to-handle, free flying sails.-   3. Elimination of heavy, rigid jib spars for optimum safety and    convenience;-   4. New combinations of diagonal battens and vertical deployment    control lines enable cockpit-controlled deployment, single-line    reefing, and recovery of hoisted headsails and mainsails.-   5. Automatic increase in self-booming rigidity as sail is reefed;-   6. Lightweight, integral booming, vanging, deployment, reefing, and    downhaul functions;-   7. Dynamic sail response to changing conditions;-   8. Stable at unstable downwind sailing angles where triangular sails    are unstable;-   9. Small incremental cost over triangular working jibs.

Advantages of Self-boomed System Sails: Optimum Performance

-   1. One specific performance objective was to get a maximum of    efficient sail area as high as possible without changing a boat's    rig. Unexpectedly, the resulting mainsails enabled and complemented    more easily handled, task-specific headsails;-   2. Self-boomed working sails with sufficient combined area can serve    as an effective, easily controlled alternative to hard-to-handle    free-flying headsails, and-   3. Stable, powerful working sails can produce average speeds for    shorthanded boats that equal or better those promised by long-footed    genoas and free-flying headsails.

“Many sailors don't want to exert themselves sheeting in largeheadsails. During last fall's boat shows we couldn't help but notice thenumber of boats offered standard with self-tacking jibs. . . . A modernboat can sail quite nicely with a large mainsail and [100%] working jib”(Practical Sailor, May 15, 2000).

The foregoing confirms that owners would increasingly chooseself-tacking jibs if only performance and safety compromises could beeliminated. The System eliminates those compromises, resolving problemsdesigners have never even considered, let alone solved.

Advantages of Self-boomed System Sails: Optimum Convenience

System convenience objectives were 100% cockpit control of self-tackingOptimized working sails without resort to rigid external spars orcostly, heavy furling configurations. Reducing those objectives topractice enabled unprecedented economies for boat builders and buyersalike.

A New, Unexpected Self-tacking Sail Type

As opposed to a convenient self-tacking headsail, a hoisted overlappinggenoa inevitably imposes port and starboard sheets, high effort tackingand jibing, and dangerous on-deck sail changes. According to the entirehistory of sail design, “overlapping” sails simply could not be“self-tacking”,

Choosing to ignore this dictum, Applicant closely observed and comparedthe tacking and jibing cycles of overlapping sails with port andstarboard sheets as well as those of sails with only a singleself-tacking sheet. These comparisons led to a concept for sails with anon-overlapping foot and an overlapping upper section. The method andthe results were diametrically opposed to long-established designapproaches. Reducing that concept to practice was anything but obvious.The unexpected results had theretofore been unimaginable.

Why Overlapping Self-tacking Hoisted Sails were Unimaginable RestoringOrder to Misused Terminology

Sail makers and boat builders have inextricably linked the term“self-tacking” with the term jib”, and the term “overlapping” with theterm “genoa”. Thus ensued the assumption that a self-tacking jib, asopposed to an overlapping genoa, could not overlap any of a boats rigelements. While apparently sound, that assumption is invalid.

To restore order: “Self-tacking” is a term that describes the movementor function of only the clew of a sail, without regard to whether anyother part of the sail overlaps a companion boat's mast or rigging.Overlapping” describes a static physical relationship between a sail'sleech and companion rig elements.

Despite prevailing assumptions to the contrary, if the clew of aself-tacking sail passes clear of companion rig elements, no physicallaw prohibits contact between its leech and a companion rig element. Itremained for Applicant to develop predetermined parameters that assuredconsistent, safe passage of a self-tacking sail's leech across rigelements when tacking and jibing.

Overlapping Self-tacking Sails: Contradiction or Syneregism?

In functional terms, designers might have asked, “Can a headsail haveboth light air power and self tacking convenience?” or, “Can anoverlapping headsail comprise a self-tacking function?” Designers neverposed such questions because such questions would have been consideredabsurd. Had a designer dared to air such a question, glib answers mightwell have included, “genoas can't self-tack, and pigs can't fly.”

-   1. Applicant's extensive Maxmain prototype tests proved that an    Optimized, overlapping mainsail not only tacked and jibe reliably    and safely across a companion permanent backstay, but that the    sail-backstay interaction significantly enhanced the test boat's    speed through tacks and jibes.-   2. Following the initial contact of the Optimized Maxmain's leech    with the test boat's permanent backstay, the sail roll smoothly    across the backstay until the backstay momentarily held the head of    the sail “aback”. Historically, holding a sail aback required that    crew delayed releasing the tensioned, or “old” sheet until the boat    passed through the axis of the wind, at which time crew quickly    released the old sheet and tensioned the “new” sheet. This maneuver    was possible only for headsails with separate port and starboard    sheets. It was neither safe, practical, or even useful to attempt to    hold a mainsail aback.-   3. A self-tacking sail that could automatically remain aback just    long enough to accelerate a boat through the axis of the wind had    never even been considered. Maxmains achieved precisely that    inconceivable result, remaining aback automatically, and then    completing the tack or jibe automatically without crew intervention,    and with a release of energy that enhanced speed through the end of    the maneuver.-   4. While Applicant has not yet built an overlapping Maxjib, such    sails should tack across the large, smooth radius of a companion    mast even more easily than the test boat's prototype Maxmain tacked    across the boat's permanent backstay. A parallel is found in the    greater ease of passage provided by increasing the diameter of a    pulley or, inversely, reducing the diameter of the cordage that    passes through a pulley.

Unexpected Single-line Reefing Results

-   1. Unexpectedly, semi-rigid battens enabled System objectives that    Bierig had deemed unfeasible. Mr. Bierig and other designers never    imagined that semi-rigid battens could self-boom a sail, let alone    resist the compression forces imposed by a reef line. Nonetheless,    the System's unique diagonal semi-rigid batten layouts produced    precisely what those designers had uniformly ignored. The result was    produced by an unexpected batten triangulation.-   2. As a self-boomed Maxjib is lowered for reefing, its bottom,    upwards-oriented diagonal batten descends along its diagonal    forestay until it assumes a horizontal attitude. At this point, the    now-horizontal bottom batten constitutes the base of a triangle    whose two other sides are the sail's second diagonal batten and its    companion forestay. This triangulation significantly reinforces the    sail's resistance to reef line compression forces.-   3. Going beyond the unexpected self-booming result, this    triangulation enables optimum sail shape and dynamic sail response    to a wide range of wind and wave conditions that a sail set from a    rigid external spar does not possess. Self-boomed System sails    respond dynamically to changing conditions while holding a sail's    foot in horizontal extension through a wind-speed range from five to    thirty-five knots. Unlike sails attached to rigid booms, self-boomed    System sails can move, or “breathe” in response to changing    conditions.-   4. Similarly, as a self-boomed Maxmain is lowered for reefing, a    triangle forms between its stationary downwards-oriented, bottom    diagonal batten; its first parallel batten; and its companion mast.    If more than one reef point is present, subsequently lowered    horizontal battens progressively reinforce the reef-configuration    triangle to meet increasing wind speeds.-   5. Progressive reinforcement of a System sail's reef triangulation    unexpectedly enabled lighter-than-anticipated battens, which reduced    weight aloft and also improved light air performance and ease of    tacking and jibing. This effect would be further extended by use of    batten reduction and batten substitute technology.-   6. Finally, self-boomed System sails displayed optimum shape and    durability over an extended test period covering thousands of sea    miles in a wide range of wind and sea conditions with no batten    breakage or unusual sail wear whatever

Unexpected Economic Results

FIG. 6 of the drawings of this Application superimposes two working sailconfigurations having equal sail area:

-   1. Optimized Maxmain 30 and overlapping Maxjib 26 fitted to a    “standard” height mast; and-   2. An “optional” tall rig configuration 113 comprising a taller    triangular mainsail 112 and triangular jib 111 fitted to a taller    mast.-   3. As seen below, batten reduction and batten substitute technology    can reduce manufacturing costs for furling boom manufacturers as    well as sail shipping and storage costs for users and sail makers    alike.-   4. Achieving triangular sail area equivalent to that of the    Optimized sail configuration shown in FIG. 6 required a 20% increase    in mast height. Comparative costs appear below for a tall rig as a    new boat options for a 35-foot, “reference boat,” costing $200,000    new, and for an aftermarket or “retrofit” modification to a used    reference boat.

Tall Rig Effect on Boat Stability and Performance

-   1. For counterpart boats, a standard-height mast setting System    Maxmain and Maxjib would undoubtedly enable equal or greater average    boat speed than a tall rig setting conventional sails. In addition,    the standard-height mast with System sails would impose less crew    effort and risk.-   2. The effect of increased mast height on boat stability can be    mitigated somewhat by using a more expensive, but lighter carbon    fiber one. In all cases, longer, heavier rigging wires are required;    adding weight aloft, which negatively affects stability. Finally,    increasing the weight and length of the lever above the water    typically increases heel and requires earlier reefing. Contrarily,    System sails reduce heel, thus enabling delayed reefing despite    their increased sail area.

Optimized Sail Cost Compared to Tall-rig Cost

-   1. Depending on whether an aluminum or carbon fiber mast were    chosen, in cost terms, a tall rig option for a new reference boat    would add $15,000-$30,000 to new boat cost. Retrofitting a tall rig    to a used reference boat would cost approximately $17,500 for an    aluminum mast and $35,000 for a carbon fiber mast, not including    labor costs, not including the time value of the period the boat was    immobilized, and not including conventional counterpart tall rig    sails costing approximately $4300.    -   Consequently, average cost for an optional tall rig for a new,        reference boat would be approximately $27,5000. Average cost to        retrofit a tall rig to a used reference boat, including new        hoisted mainsail and roller furling genoa would be approximately        $32,000 plus labor and the time value of the period during which        the boat was immobilized.-   2. A System Maxmain and Maxjib having tall-rig-equivalent-sail-area    would add a $1200 increment over the cost of conventional sails for    the standard-height mast, or 4% of the cost of a tall rig. Truly    versatile System sails impose no modification to boat or rig, they    involve no installation cost, and they reduce heel by 15%,    delivering optimum boat speed with minimum crew intervention.-   3. In percentage terms, fitting an Optimized Maxmain and Maxjib to a    reference boat having a standard-height mast would increase the    reference boat's sail area by 30% for less than 1% of new boat cost.    While a tall-rig retrofit with conventional mainsail and furling    genoa could provide a similar increase in surface area, minimum cost    would be 20% to 30% of the price of a new reference boat. Naturally,    the 30-to-one percentage-of-cost advantage of System sails over tall    rig conversions would increase significantly in the case of a used    reference boat, according to its age and condition.-   4. Where System sails are an easily installed, highly cost-effective    performance product, tall rigs are not cost-effective, either as new    boat options or retrofits.-   5. In marketing terms, a $1200 increment to the cost of a $200,000    boat amounts to a “must have” item for a boat owner looking at a    $30,000 cost for a tall rig conversion that cannot deliver    equivalent performance or convenience advantages for a shorthanded    boat. To the owner of a used reference boat worth, for example,    $120,000, the cost-to-performance ration further favors the choice    of System sails over a tall rig configuration.-   6. It is justifiable to view these numbers as the basis of a “new    economics” for boat builders and sail makers.

Tall Rig Versus Optimized Sails: Summary

In summary, a boat with Optimized sails fitted to a standard-height mastwould be lighter than one with a tall rig, would heel 15% less, andwould go as fast or faster than the tall rig counterpart with less creweffort and risk. A 1% or $1200 increment to new boat price would yield30% more sail area and greater sail efficiency, plus increased safetyand comfort. Clearly, simply installed System sails that equal or bettertall-rig-performance would be highly attractive and marketable at lessthan 5% of the cost of a tall rig.

Unexpected Convenience and Safety Results

-   1. Surprisingly, reefing or recovering prototype hoisted Maxjibs    proved easier than furling the test boat's roller furling genoa    headsail, particularly in heavier wind conditions. The test boat's    twin-headstay configuration enabled direct comparison of a hoisted    Maxjib and various furling genoas.-   2. Gravity and the Maxjib downhaul line invariably helped lower or    reef the 100% cockpit-controlled, hoisted Maxjib in all conditions,    whereas natural forces, notably wind and wave conditions    progressively mitigated genoa furling as conditions deteriorated.    The harder the wind blows, the more difficult the furling process,    and the greater the possibility of problems with the furling    mechanism, the furling line or the sail, itself.-   3. Even worse, as a genoa increases in size, the force required to    reef or fully recover it increases exponentially, and the length of    line required to recover it increases proportionately. Consequently,    in heavy weather, a fouled furling line or mechanism may render    furling impossible. In the event the sail is already partially    furled, cutting the sail away would be the only means of reducing    sail area to a safe level.-   4. In a best-case scenario, a fully deployed furling headsail would    require a dangerous on-deck lowering maneuver at the front of the    boat where conditions would be worst. Reefing or lowering a hoisted    Maxjib in heavy weather actually produced less anxiety and required    less effort than furling a supposedly safer and more convenient    roller furling counterpart in like conditions.-   5. As for light air conditions, if supplementary free flying sails    are used, even furling ones, crewmembers must go forward frequently    to lower and stow such sails and set or strike a spinnaker pole if    one is used. Freestanding sails are not left in place permanently.    Contrarily, a hoisted Maxmain and Maxjib combination eliminates    on-deck sail handling while providing appropriate self-boomed sail,    self tacking sail area for wind speeds as low as five knots; and    while causing the least possible heel regardless of wind speed.-   6. Cases will undoubtedly arise where a boat owner might elect to    use less than maximum feasible sail area yet still access the    System's convenience and safety properties. System design    accommodates such demands.-   7. For example, the owner of a traditional sailboat might wish to    retain a traditional triangular sail profile for aesthetic reasons    but still enjoy the convenience benefits of a comprehensive System    control configuration. Such an election sacrifices performance but    would cost somewhat less than a full System configuration. Similar    priorities might exist in applying System sails to commercial    navigation such as fishing trawlers or larger sail-powered passenger    or cargo vessels.-   8. Conversely, a performance-oriented boat owner who sails with a    full complement of skilled crewmembers might wish to forego the    convenience of comprehensive System cockpit control, thus limiting    his sail configuration to a System batten layout and leech curve    conforming to universal System maximum roach parameters. As above,    such an election sacrifices convenience but would cost somewhat less    than a full System configuration.-   9. The foregoing applications of System properties are unexpected in    that Applicant envisioned applications demanding an integration of    optimum performance and optimum convenience and safety. In fact, the    design fusion of System properties is divisible to advantageously    satisfy particular marketing requirements.-   9. System solutions thus filter through, either separately or    jointly, to meet the needs of the entire spectrum of boat-owners.    Applicant tailored the System for shorthanded boats, yet System    configurations unexpectedly meet the needs of fully crewed race    boats as well those of boats that opt for traditional sail profile.-   10. The unexpected breadth of the System's marketing potential    attests to the fact that the System presents unprecedented solutions    to a diversity of performance, convenience, and safety demands;    solutions that were heretofore unavailable and, indeed, unobvious.

Step-by-step Development Process

A sail controlled by a single sheet provides “hands-off” self-tackingbecause its sheet and clew do not contact rig elements when the sailtacks or jibes. Incorrectly, designers assumed that if the clew of asail must clear companion rigging, so must the entire back end of thatsail. Applicant's extensive prototype testing established that a sailcombining overlapping leech whose clew was non-overlapping tacked andjibed reliably and safely. Following extensive testing of two prototypedesigns Applicant sought to develop predetermined maximum parametersthat would make the discovery applicable to both mainsails andself-tacking headsails for any conventionally rigged sailboat. Theeventual product would be a new sail type drawn with new, unexpecteduniversal geometric parameters; one which could replace external sparswith new, unexpected semi-rigid batten layouts; one that wouldunexpectedly enable self-boomed, self-tacking overlapping headsails andmainsails.

Reduction of Theory to Practice

Once wind fills a sail, its cambered three-dimensional profile is“narrower” than its flat, two-dimensional profile might suggest. Inoperation, the test boat's Maxmain contacted companion permanentbackstay 18 without violence, then “rolled” across the backstay frominitial Maxmain rig contact point 82 upwards. Crossing last, the sail'shead 98 paused “aback” momentarily, complementing the momentum of theboat as it turned toward the axis of the wind. As the Maxmain's headfinally crossed the backstay, a release of energy automaticallyaccelerated the test boat through the axis of the wind. Thousands ofsuccessful tacking and jibing maneuvers with overlapping Maxmainprototypes confirmed this unexpected phenomenon.

-   1. While Applicant has not yet produced a working, overlapping    Maxjib, his Maxmain backstay-batten deflection tests should apply    equally to an overlapping Maxjib 26. With each tack or jibe, an    overlapping maxmain crosses its companion mast 10, which has a    large, smooth radius, and forward lower shrouds 16, which incline    inwards, thus favoring a sail's tacking and jibing momentum. Those    rig elements should prove significantly less obstructive to tacking    and jibing an overlapping leech than does a permanent backstay    consisting of a rigging wire having a less favorable radius and    inclination.-   2. Predetermined, universally applicable maximum roach parameters    for each System sail are based on embodiment-specific,    rig-element-related reference points. Basing roach calculations on a    measurement taken from the sail, itself, such as “E” cannot provide    sailmakers with functional, predictable roach overlap parameters. An    overlapping sail must clear companion rig elements, and it is a    sail's relationship with those rig elements that must engender    universally applicable roach parameters, not calculations drawn from    the length of the sail's foot. Applicant's predetermined maximum    roach parameters were derived from sail-to-rig spatial    relationships. As such, those parameters generate leech limit points    96 that insure maximum functional sail area and an elliptical leech    for each System sail, regardless of a boat's rig configuration.

Apparent Design Obstacles

Applicant encountered seemingly insurmountable design problems:

-   1. Could a hoisted, overlapping self-tacking headsail be compatible    with any conventionally rigged sailboat? Since the terms    “overlapping” and “self-tacking” had always been considered    contradictory, the obvious answer was, “no.”-   2. Could a relatively small hoisted, self-tacking headsail for    heavier conditions somehow become a “big”, overlapping headsail yet    still tack and jibe automatically? The obvious answer was, “no.”-   3. Could predetermined maximum roach overlap parameters enable large    roach overlapping mainsails for conventionally rigged sailboats with    permanent backstays? The obvious answer had always been, “no.”

Transcending those problems was anything but obvious. The relativelysmall sail area and inefficiency of triangular working sails andpersistent assumptions that had perpetuated the role of triangularworking sails were virtually inescapable facts of life.

-   -   “From the perspective of induced drag, the worst shape for an        airfoil is a triangle, [which is] the shape of a headsail and,        to a lesser extent a main (Whidden, The Art and Science of        Sails, St. Martin's Press (1990).

Unexpected Theoretical Conclusions Reduced to Practice

Reducing Optimized working sails to practice demanded predeterminedmaximum roach overlap parameters that at once assured maximum sail areaand consistent tacking and jibing without unusual sail wear in actualsailing conditions. Low wind speeds Presented the greatest problembecause a sail might not have sufficient momentum to tack or jibe acrosscompanion rig elements.

Applicant developed and reduced to practice predetermined maximum roachparameters for overlapping, self-tacking System sails that tacked andjibed reliably without unusual sail wear, even at winds speeds as low asthree knots. Hoisted System sails introduced an unprecedentedcombination of attributes:

-   -   1. Adequate sail area for truly light conditions of 3-5 knot        wind speeds.    -   2. Reliable tacking and jibing in wind speeds as low as three        knots.    -   3. Integrated cockpit controlled deployment, recovery, and        single-line reefing functions.    -   4. Single-line reefing without resort to a rigid external spar.    -   5. 30% more sail are than triangular counterparts.    -   6. Optimum sail form for downwind sailing without resort to an        external spar.    -   7. Overlapping semi-elliptical performance combined with hoisted        sail economy and safety.    -   8. Convenience equal or better than that of furling        configurations.

Specific Prototype Test Results: Summary

-   -   1. The test boat's prototype non-overlapping Maxjib 28 and        external-spar Maxmain 32, had approximately 30% more surface        area than triangular counterparts and tacked and jibed reliably        in all wind conditions. Entirely cockpit-controlled, the sails        increased the test boat's speed by fifteen-percent and reduced        heeling by five degrees, or thirty-percent.    -   2. The test boat's non-overlapping Maxjib's diagonal batten        layout provided lightweight, low cost self-booming and vanging,        enabling cockpit-controlled single-line reefing.    -   3. Cockpit-controlled sail-deployment, reefing, and recovery        reduced effort and anxiety levels.    -   4. The test boat's overlapping Maxmain tacked and jibed smoothly        across the boat's permanent backstay in winds as low as three        knots and exhibited no unusual wear.    -   5. Applicant's predetermined maximum roach parameters proved        reliable through a series of prototype Maxmains, proving the        feasibility of such parameters for series boat builders and        sailmakers.

Prototype Test Results Lead to Unexpected New Sail Types

Prototype tests proved that new semi-rigid batten layouts could supportan Optimized sail's roach while providing self-booming. Those battenconfigurations combined with innovative batten and luff connectionconfigurations enabled self-boomed designs for Maxmain 30, overlappingMaxjib 28, and non-overlapping Maxjib 28 as well as one for externalspar Maxmain 32, each producing new, unexpected results.

Unexpected New Sail Types Suggest New Batten and Sailcloth Uses

“Batten substitute technology”, an alternate embodiment of the System,enables lighter battens or even batten-free construction forsemi-elliptical sail System sail embodiments. Thus lightening sailweight aloft further extends System sail advantages.

Alternate Embodiment: External Batten Reduction Technology: Overview

The mainstream sail market is less receptive to reduced sail weight thanis the racing market. For the mainstream market, sail-weight-reductionmust be attractively priced and must not compromise sail life.Lightweight but costly carbon fiber battens, for example, would havelittle, if any, mainstream market potential. Mainstream sail buyersstill prefer heavier Dacron™ sails to less durable but lighter sailsmade with exotic, expensive materials such as Kevlar™.

Using presently available technology such as Dacron™ sailcloth andfiberglass battens, the System introduces cost-effective reduction ofweight aloft while actually enhancing the tacking and jibing ofoverlapping sails. Synergism is seen in the following:

External batten reduction technology, applicable to any sail, wouldcombine a smaller, lighter-than-usual flat or round conventional battenand a task-specific, high-density batten reduction sleeve 37 in place ofa larger, heavier conventional batten pocket and batten. An example ofexternal batten reduction technology is seen in FIGS. 11, and 11 a:

FIG. 11 a shows a smaller-than-usual conventional fiberglass batten incombination with a correspondingly smaller, task-specific high-densitybatten reduction sleeve 37. Such a batten reduction combination couldachieve weight reduction at a lower cost than, for example, a lighterbut stiffer carbon fiber batten, which would impede tacking and jibingan overlapping sail. One skilled in the art specifies battens for givensail area and boat weight according to well-known parameters. Therelative strength, weight, and resistance of available sailcloth andbatten material is known to such individuals, thus enabling specificallyidentifiable, reductions of batten resistance coupled with purelyproportional increases in batten pocket resistance. This proportionalapproach will effect a reduction of weight aloft because batten stock isheavier than the batten pocket cloth used for making batten substitutes.

Task-specific high-density batten reduction sleeves 37, as more fullydescribed below, could be made from sewn or laminated combinations ofavailable sailcloth having fabric orientation such as that seen in FIG.11 a. Batten reduction sleeves would also have external variable densitybatten sleeve zones 37 a situated at rig contact points that wouldoptimize tacking and jibing.

Alternatively, such external batten reduction sleeves could befabricated using existing fiber-orienting-sail-making-technology tocreate design-specific local fiber orientation and densities. They couldthen be attached to panel-cut, or even fiber-oriented laminated sails.Fiber orientation technology, which is the most costly sail constructionmethod, could even be used to effect reduced sail weight for lessexpensive, panel-cut sails.

Manufacture of such batten reduction sleeves is a new and unanticipateduse of fiber-orientated sail making technology that would generateunexpected new sail making products and revenues. Such batten reductionsleeves would be easily transportable in large quantities and couldcarry high profit margins. Each such batten reduction sleeve couldadditionally incorporate a low-friction outer skin to further facilitatetacking and jibing and to reduce wear.

FIG. 11 a also shows a semi-rigid batten having a variable densitybatten zone 37 d. Reducing the thickness of a batten in a zone proximatea to rig contact point could further facilitate reliable tacking andjibing without detracting from a batten's ability to maintain sailshape. Such reduction in an intermediate zone of a batten rather than atits extremity is, in itself, a new use of a conventional batten. Battenswith variable density zones can be manufactured using existingtechnology. The combination of a high density batten reduction sleeveand a variable density batten zone is a new one, and the combinationleads to an unexpected result: significantly lighter overlappingheadsails and mainsails that tack and jibe safely and reliably acrossthe rig elements of any conventionally rigged sailboat.

Alternate Embodiment: Integral Batten Substitute Technology Batten-FreeSails: Overview

FIG. 11 b illustrates how a new use of existing fiber orientingtechnology could be used to eliminate battens and batten pocketsentirely. Sails made with integral batten substitutes would have aself-supporting roach. This unanticipated result deriving from a new useof fiber-oriented sail making technology would combine specificdensities and orientations of horizontal fibers and “diagonal orvertical fibers along each batten-substitute axis.

Each such combination, or integral batten-substitute 37 b, would replacea corresponding batten and pocket. One skilled in the art knows thesail-support resistance required at each level of a sail and uses thatknowledge systematically to specify battens for specific sail area andboat weight. Similarly, such individuals know the resistance of thefibers used in making sailcloth with fiber-oriented technology. Thuswould known concepts and material be used to effect a direct,proportional substitution effected in deriving new, unexpected uses ofknown concepts and materials.

As seen in FIG. 11 b, placement of task-specific integral variabledensity zones 37 c at rig contact and sail-folding points would enablebatten substitutes to deform and recover their original configuration,thus facilitating sail maneuvers as well as sail folding. The specificsof both external batten reductions and integral batten substitutes areset forth immediately below.

How to Make a Sail with External Batten Reduction Techonology

FIGS. 11 and 11 a show a self-boomed Maxmain 30 in a partial side view,and in an exploded side view, respectively. The batten shown in FIG. 11a represents a 10-millimeter-wide flat fiberglass batten, which hasreplaced a 20-millimeter-wide counterpart. A correspondingly smaller,lighter, closed end, task-specific high-density batten reduction sleeve37 contains the 10-millimeter batten. That relatively lighter batten canfurther enhance tacking and jibing if it comprises a variable densitybatten zone 37 d proximate to a rig contact point, as seen in FIG. 11 a.A high-density batten sleeve in combination with a batten having arig-contact-zone-reduction 15% should produce optimum tacking and jibingacross rig elements without prejudicing sail shape.

The combination would provide adequate roach support while reducing sailweight. In the case of a hoisted mainsail fitted to a furling boom,furled sail volume is a critical consideration. Reducing the volume of afurling boom's companion sail allows yet another unexpected result: asingle boom boom size could accommodate a larger range of sail sizes asopposed to having an expanded range of boom sizes to accomplish the sameend.

Unexpectedly, an economical combination of new batten and batten pocketconfigurations reduces sail volume for boom-furled sails where formerlyexpensive tri-radial sail construction and costly, less durable sailcloth were the only means to reducing sail volume.

Task specific high-density batten sleeves and variable density battenzones would be located and oriented according to a sail's design andcould incorporate a low-friction outer skin in areas of rig contact tofurther facilitate tacking and jibing. External variable density battensleeve zones 37 a as seen in FIG. 11 also facilitate rolling or foldinga sail.

Unexpected Results: External Batten Reduction Combinations

Violent contact between a heavy, rigid external boom and rig elementscan break a boom or even worse, sever rigging, perhaps dismasting a boatin the case of a violent accidental jibe. A semi-rigid batten transmitsminimal shock as it contacts a rig element, even in the case of anaccidental jibe. The self-boomed configurations shown in FIGS. 11 a and11 b would transmit less shock than rigid spar counterparts and would beless susceptible to damage. External variable density batten sleevezones 37 a would further mitigate rig contact impact. In no event woulda semi-rigid batten menace a boat's rig elements.

Reducing sail volume without resort to costly, exotic sail materials andsail construction methods is yet another unexpected result of battenreduction and batten substitute technology. For example, furling boommanufacturers frequently specify maximum luff lengths that furl intotheir booms only under perfect conditions, leaving no room for crewerror or difficult weather conditions. A furling boom for even a smallboat such as Applicant's test boat typically costs over $5,000, and themarginal boom specification for the test boat's sail obliged Applicantreluctantly replaced his original furling boom with a larger one atconsiderable expense and effort.

Use of a furling boom is a personal choice for each boat owner. In sharpcontrast, safe mainsail reduction and recovery in all conditions is nota matter of choice, but one of absolute necessity. As an example, themanufacturer of Applicant's furling boom specified a maximum luff lengthof eleven meters. The boom was incapable of furling even ten meters ofluff length. The manufacturer increased the capacity of later boomversions to correct the deficiency.

Failing a change of boom, a boat owner can attempt to “make do” with anundersized furling boom by discarding his existing sail, or to replacingit at great expense with a marginally less voluminous sail made fromexotic materials such as a Kevlar™-based laminations. In such cases,volume reductions effected by batten substitution would be greater thanany reduction effected by resort to exotic sail cloth. Accordingly, inmany cases, structurally sound but unusable furling boom sails could berestored unexpectedly to years of safe, efficient use by means of battensubstitution technology. As a corollary, that same technology wouldapply to an eventual an unexpected reduction of the weight and volume ofmainsails used with for in-mast furling mechanisms.

Thus far, furling booms have failed to reach a wider market because theyrequire a high level of operator skill as a sail is furled down into aboom. Batten reduction and substitute technology can mitigate thosefurling-boom-specific problems. Of wider importance, a reduction in asail's volume and weight reduces the effort required to handle it andmore importantly, extends the margin for crew error in furling the sail.Those advantages apply to all sailboat configurations, not simply boomfurling configurations.

System sails that integrate batten reduction or batten substituteconfigurations can be of economical panel-cut Dacron™ construction yetstill assure reduced sail volume for furling boom applications andreduced weight aloft for all applications. For furling boommanufacturers and resellers, batten reduction and batten substitutetechnology enables a smaller range of boom sizes as opposed to a morediverse range, greatly reducing manufacturing, storage, and shippingcosts.

Making a Batten-free Sail with Integral Batten-substitute Technology

FIG. 11 b is an exploded partial side view of a batten-free sailconstructed with existing fiber-orienting technology. The combinationcomprises:

-   -   1. Synthetic sail making fibers such as Dacron™ locally        laminated along horizontal paths, thus substituting in part for        semi-rigid battens; and    -   2. “Diagonal or vertical”, task-specific laminations of        synthetic sail making fibers such as Dacron™ laminated in        combination with the horizontal fibers to complement their        rigidity. The diagonal fibers shown In FIG. 11 a have areas of        reduced density near backstay contact points, constituting        external variable density batten sleeve zones 37 a.

For purposes of illustration, only diagonal fibers have been depicted inFIG. 11 a. A basic or reference density ratio of approximately twodiagonal or vertical fibers to one horizontal fiber should provide roachsupport while allowing the folding of a sail for stowage or transport.The combined rigidity of an external batten reduction sleeve and itscompanion batten should be equivalent to that of the batten thecombination replaces.

With the foregoing “reference density” as a point of departure,densities for external variable density batten sleeve zones 37 a wouldbe derived as follows:

-   -   1. In variable density zones, “vertical or diagonal” fiber        density would be approximately 85% of reference density, and        horizontal fiber density would be approximately 70% of reference        density. Those lamination densities should ensure roach support        while facilitating tacking, jibing, and folding a sail for        storage or shipment.    -   2. In variable density zones, “diagonal or vertical” fibers        would separate, or “deform” upon rig contact or sail folding by        virtue of locally reduced density, then return to their original        configuration as intermittent loading decreased. Similarly,        horizontal fibers would yield upon rig contact or folding then        return to original configuration as point loading decreased. The        aggregate deformation should enable tacking and jibing a        batten-free sail as well as folding it.

External and Integral Batten Substitute Technology in Operation

A high-density external batten reduction sleeve 37 a would present noobstacle to tacking, jibing. Once its companion batten was removed, thepocket would not prevent folding the sail for storage. Foldinginstructions for each System sail would explain folding procedures basedon permanently marked variable density zones. As an added benefit,reducing the weight and rigidity of a sail's battens facilitates storingthem.

As a sail with either external batten reduction technology or integralbatten substitute technology tacks or jibes, leech-to-rig contactinitiates a repeatable energy cycle. First, respective variable densityareas of the sail would yield at each such contact, storing energy.Next, the sail's respective variable density areas would rollsequentially across companion rig element/s, beginning with a lowermostrig contact point and ending at the head the sail, which will beautomatically held aback. As the head crosses the intervening rigelement, a final release of energy accelerates the boat through the endof the tack or jibe.

A reduced density zone forward of permanent backstay 18 in FIGS. 11 aand 11 b is approximately ⅔ the size of the zone of reduced density aftof the backstay. Such zone proportions should maximize initial flexingand shock absorption as a sail contacts rig contact points. As theenergy cycle continues through a tack or jibe, as each batten reductionor batten substitute bends, a consequent storing of energy results, muchas energy is stored by cocking a bow; as the sail clears a correspondingrig element, that energy releases, thus optimizing completion of thetack or jibe. This unexpected power booster adds to the safety oftacking in large waves where boats can fail to complete a tack for wantof adequate momentum. Unexpectedly, instead of hindering tacking andjibing, this automatic “aback” phase of each maneuver enhances themaneuver.

The energy cycle repeats from an initial rig contact point upwards,progressively accelerating a boat through a tack or jibe, as eachvariable density zone 37 a yields and rebounds, thus augmenting theacceleration process and establishing a synergism. That synergismresembles one created by the individual coils a 1950's “slinky” springtoy as it magically descended a flight of stairs.

Performance and Marketing Advantages of Batten Substitute Technology

-   1. System batten reduction and batten substitute configurations    would each enhance a sail's shock absorbing and flexing capabilities    while lowering overall sail weight. Each configuration would assure    roach support and synergistic energy cycles for optimum tacking and    jibing.-   2. System design brings to conventionally rigged boats entirely new    overlapping sail types, utilizing permanent backstays and other rig    elements advantageously, whereas permanent backstays had always    severely limited mainsail shape and size.

Use of Known Materials and Methods, Patented and Unpatented

The System parts list includes the Dutchman™ deployment control system73. In addition, diverse patented fiber orienting sail making methodscould be used to produce the System's high-density batten reductionsleeves 37 a or entire System sails. Use of a patented component doesnot obviate an invention's patentability. Furthermore, as concernsApplicant's System, each use of patented methods or materials is a newuse, which produces unexpected results neither taught nor impliled bythe prior art.

The following examples illustrate unforeseeable as opposed toforeseeable uses of patented products or technology:

-   1. Unforeseeable Uses: use of patented fiber-orientating sail making    technology to make external high-density batten reduction sleeves    37, integral batten substitutes 37 b and variable density zones 37 a    and 37 c for use on conventional, panel-cut sails.-   2. Unforeseeable uses: use of patented Dutchman deployment System 73    in combination with a self-boomed sail to enable single line    reefing. Dutchman systems were conceived uniquely for use with a    rigid external boom setting a sail having battens parallel to the    boom. U.S. Pat. No. 4,688,506 to Van Breems (1987) clearly limited    its invention to sails having battens lying parallel to external    booms:    -   [A Dutchman system consists of] . . . one, two, or three control        lines which run parallel to the mast from the boom to a topping        lift . . . . Equidistant . . . battens run parallel to the boom        . . . ” The sail control system . . . will employ the existing        boom . . . . (Van Breems, p. 1, lines 30-65).

Confirming the foregoing, each of the Van Breems drawings shows a “boom”identified with the number “16” in the case of both mainsails and jibs.Thus limited, the coverage of Van Breems could in no way, explicit orimplicit, extend to System sails that have diagonal battens disposedpursuant to predetermined maximum roach parameters, and that eliminatebooms altogether. System sails are, therefore, distinct from Van Breemsand referenced prior art, which nowhere described, depicted or suggesteda headsail or mainsail having the foregoing properties, eitherseparately or in combination.

Applicant's use of the Dutchman deployment system in an unforeseeablecontext produced unexpected new results that had been ignored entirelyor even deemed impossible by the Van Breems patent. For example, selfboomed Maxmain 30 attaches a Dutchman deployment system 73 at an angleto and well above the Maxmain's foot, whereas Van Breems specifiesattachment at foot level and in the axis of a sail's foot.

Where Van Breems required an external boom, the System eliminates them.Van Breems required boom-parallel horizontal battens, whereas the Systememploys diagonal battens. The System employs Dutchman deployment systems73 in diverse new contexts, each providing not only deployment controlbut also uniform foot support and horizontal foot extension in bothfully deployed and reefed configurations, all in the absence of a boom.

Finally, System sails can produce their entire range of functions andresults without resort to a Dutchman system. Preferred Systemembodiments can use the Dutchman system, but lazy jacks or no deploymentcontrol device at all are other alternatives. Those alternativesfacilitate addressing a broader market. A Dutchman deployment system 73is simply one possible item of the parts list for System embodiments. Insummary, the System's new and unexpected results mark a qualitativeadvance in the art of sail power, notably as concerns sails thateliminate external booms. Van Breems discloses only a narrow advance indeployment control methods for a sail set from an external boom.

Similarly, use of a patented fiber orientation construction method tobuild a System sail or to build high-density batten reduction sleeves 37a represents no more than contracting for application of existingmethods and materials by an authorized vendor to the execution ofAppliant's new, unexpected, and proprietary designs. Such use of fiberorientation sail making technology is a new and unforeseen use of known,patented technology for the production of third-party designs yieldingnew and unexpected results; in this case designs provided by Applicant.

-   3. Unforeseeable Uses: Diagonal batten configurations as well as    Batten substitute configurations including diagonal ones. Van Breems    is exemplary in teaching only conventional, horizontally oriented    batten configurations.    -   “6. A sail control system as recited in claim 2 and further        comprising a plurality of vertically spaced battens fixed to the        sail and extending horizontally across the sail . . . ” (Van        Breems, p. 4, lines 25-29.)-   4. Foreseeable Uses: Use of a patented mainsheet boom pulley System    as a mainsheet vang pulley system. In such case, the pulley system    would be performing its intended force-multiplication-function    between different, but nonetheless foreseeable attachment points    necessarily and customarily controlled by such a block-and-tackle    device.

Summary of Unexpected New Results and System Innovations

The System's unexpected new results and innovations include thefollowing:

-   1. Unique predetermined maximum roach parameters enable Optimized,    overlapping self-tacking, self-boomed headsails and mainsails    compatible with the rig of any conventionally rigged sailboat.-   2. Overlapping, self-tacking System sails use permanent backstays    and other rig elements to advantage, whereas permanent backstays had    always posed a negative restriction on sail size and shape. System    sail leech-to-last-rig-contact-point interaction automatically    accelerates System sails through tacking and jibing maneuvers.    Heretofore, such a result was inconceivable.-   3. Self-tacking System sails optimize the sail area and efficiency    of any sailboat without modification to boat or rig; unexpectedly    constituting an unexpected, cost-effective alternative to tall rig    configurations.-   4. System sails can eliminate external booms, which have heretofore    been indispensable to single-line reefing. Diagonal semi-rigid    batten layouts automatically and progressively resist reef line    compression forces as a System sail is reefed, eliminating external    booms.-   5. System Sails combine comprehensive, 100% cockpit-controlled    deployment, reefing, and recovery with true working sail versatility    for optimum performance and convenience in wind speeds from three to    thirty-five knots and above.-   6. Unexpectedly, both boat builders and buyers can realize savings    by realizing optimum performance while avoiding costly rig and boat    modifications.-   7. Optimum interface between Optimized sails replaces the turbulent    interface between inefficient triangular headsails and mainsails.-   8. Full dynamic sail response to changing wind and sea conditions    resulting from elimination of rigid external spars.-   9. Headboard-end end plate combination 74 unexpectedly combines    safety results with aerodynamic results usually related to the foot    of a sail to produce intersail synergism while optimizing safety and    performance.-   10. Unforeseen use of a Dutchman™ vertical deployment control lines    to evenly support the foot of a boomless System sail enables cockpit    controlled single-line headsail and mainsail reefing in the absence    of an external boom.-   11. Compatible with both “lazy bags” as well as lazy jacks, System    sails assure maximum marketability.-   12. New semi-rigid batten layouts produce self-booming,    self-vanging, and reinforced reef triangulation functions.-   13. Unprecedented applications of fiber-oriented laminated sail    making methods enable smaller, lighter battens or eliminate battens    altogether.

Unexpected Results Produced by Solving Insolvable Problems

In finding solutions to insolvable problems, Applicant's System producednew and unexpected advances in the art of sail power including thefollowing:

-   1. 30% more sail area without resort to long-footed genoas, free    flying sails, or costly tall rig transformations.-   2. Universally compatible predetermined maximum roach parameters-   3. New batten; batten reduction; or batten substitute configurations    that enable self-boomed, self-tacking overlapping semi-elliptical    headsails and mainsails as well as lighter, less voluminous sails.-   4. Converting a permanent backstay and other rig elements from an    absolute disadvantage to an operational advantage when tacking and    jibing.-   5. Hoisted, overlapping, self-tacking sails that rival or better the    performance as well as the convenience and safety of furling    counterparts.

Hoisted System Configurations Better Conventional Furling Configurations

Relatively inefficient furling configurations achieved market dominancebecause they were convenient and safe to use. The System's hoistedworking sails provide equal or better convenience and safety plus lowercost, true versatility, and Optimized performance.

The System's hoisted sails impose no compromise. Indeed, no imaginableconfiguration, hoisted or furling, approaches the functional andeconomic advantages of System working sails for conventionally riggedsailboats. For example, the System eliminates external spars, not with aloss of capability, but rather, with gains in convenience, safety, andperformance that only increase as conditions deteriorate.

Market Precedents: Unexpected Products and Commercial Success

-   1. “Big Bertha” golf clubs “invented” their own market just when    golf club design seemed to have reached an impasse.-   2. A surfer and a sailor combined their ideas; decided a human body    could replace a mast; and created sailboards. Sailboards still sail    faster than even the most radical sailboats.-   3. In a similarly unprecedented synergism, the System combines the    bottom of a unique self-tacking sail, the top of an overlapping    sail, and universally applicable roach parameters to create    unprecedented overlapping self-tacking headsails and mainsails.-   4. The mainstream sail market has long demanded easily controlled,    truly versatile self-tacking sails that are cost-efficient and    aesthetic. Applicant's System reduces those demands to practice    using existing sail making materials and methods to produce entirely    unprecedented sail types and results.

Marketing Claims and Downwind Sailing Realities

A truly convenient free flying sail a contradiction in terms. Allfree-flying sails require poles for optimum downwind sailing.

“Pole-less cruising spinnakers are great on a reach, but they cancollapse or oscillate too much as the boat bounces around in oceanswells . . . a traditional [poled] symmetrical spinnaker is moreversatile than an asymmetrical cruising spinnaker since you can use iton more numerous points of sail.” (UK sailmakers Newsletter, December2001).

A truly safe and convenient system for fast downwind sailing that couldeliminate on-deck sail handling would be both a market success and arevolution in sail power. Self-boomed, self-tacking Maxjibs and Maxmainsprovide just such a result; assuring balanced surface area forcockpit-controlled, high performance-low effort downwind sailingregardless of crew size or conditions. The System makes having “theright sail at the right time” a routine matter for shorthanded crews.

Advantages and Objectives of the System—Summary

-   1. Optimized mainsails and self-tacking headsails providing optimum    performance, convenience and safety in all conditions regardless of    crew size or skill.-   2. Optimum performance, convenience and safety for any    conventionally rigged sailboat without modification to boat or rig.-   3. A sail System that at once reduced costs for boat buyers and    improved profits for the sailboat industry.-   4. A System sail design that produced synergism and cost-effective    wind power for both recreational and commercial users of    wind-powered craft.

Additional Content

In addition to the foregoing Specification, the present Application alsoincludes:

-   1. A list of reference numerals.-   2. A description of drawings.-   3. A review of the System's theoretical basis.-   4. Instructions for making and using the System.-   5. A description of main and alternative embodiments of the    invention and its additional ramifications.-   6. Three main claims plus twelve dependent claims; and-   6. An Abstract.

List Of Reference Numerals

-   mast 10-   mast track 11-   forestay 12-   inner forestay 14-   halyard 15-   forward lower shroud 16-   permanent backstay 18-   wishbone 19-   boom 20-   pulley 21-   clew ring 22-   tack ring 23-   head ring 24-   padeye 25-   overlapping Maxjib 26-   non-overlapping Maxjib 28-   self-boomed Maxmain 30-   external-spar Maxmain 32-   diagonal closed batten pocket 34-   diagonal open batten pocket 35-   horizontal closed batten pocket 36-   high-density external batten reduction sleeve 37-   external variable density batten sleeve zone 37 a-   integral batten substitute 37 b-   integral variable density zone 37 c-   variable density batten zone 37 d-   round batten 38-   flat batten 40-   leech batten box 41-   ring-end luff batten box 42-   sail slide luff batten box 43-   flat-end luff batten box 44-   fork-end luff batten box 45-   sail hank 46-   sail slide 48-   jackline 50-   downhaul 52-   reef line 54-   topping lift 55-   strop 58-   luff reef point 60-   leech reef point 62-   self-tacking sheet 64-   port and starboard sheets 66-   Lazy jacks 68-   Dutchman eyelets 69-   Dutchman tab 70-   Lazy jack tab 71-   Dutchman vertical control line 72-   Dutchman deployment control system 73-   headboard-end plate combination 74-   metal grommet 75-   headsail furling mechanism 76-   initial Maxjib rig contact point 80-   initial Maxmain rig contact point 82-   backstay contact diagonal 84-   head-to-clew diagonal 85-   overlapping Maxjib rig contact diagonal 86-   horizontal construction line 88-   vertical extremities construction line 89-   leech measurement intersection 90-   forward girth segment 92-   aft girth segment 94-   leech limit point 96-   head 98-   luff 99-   tack 100-   foot 101-   clew 102-   reinforced foot band 103-   overlapping Maxjib leech curve 104-   non-overlapping Maxjib leech curve 106-   Maxmain leech curve 108-   ellipse 110-   tall rig jib 111-   tall rig mainsail 112-   tall rig mast 113-   counterpart overlapping triangular genoa 114-   snap shackle 116-   mast track insert 118-   mast track gate 120

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a side view of a sailboat with a conventionally boomed Maxmainand a non-overlapping Maxjib with comprehensive integral controlfunctions.

FIG. 2 is a side view of a two-masted sailboat with an overlappingMaxjib forward, a non-overlapping Maxjib amidships, and an overlapping,self-boomed Maxmain aft, each sail having comprehensive integral controlfunctions

FIG. 3 is a side view of a sailboat with a reefed, self-boomed Maxmainaft and a reefed, overlapping Maxjib connected to an inner forestayforward.

FIG. 4 is a partial side view of a fully deployed, self-boomed Maxmainshowing its single-line reefing system, its two lowermost battens, andthe connection of those battens to a companion mast track by respectiveleech batten boxes.

FIG. 4 a is a partial side view of a reefed, self-boomed Maxmain showinga reefing triangulation comprising the sail's two lowermost battens andcompanion mast.

FIG. 5 is a partial side view of a fully deployed, overlapping Maxjibshowing its single-line reefing System, its three lowermost battens, andtheir connection to an inner forestay.

FIG. 5 a is a partial side of a reefed, overlapping Maxjib showing areefing triangulation comprising the sail's two lowermost battens andcompanion inner forestay.

FIG. 6 is a side view of a sailboat with a tall-rig mast and companiontall-rig triangular mainsail and working jib superimposed over astandard height mast with companion semi-elliptical Maxmain and Maxjibworking sails equivalent in area to the counterpart tall rig triangularsails.

FIG. 6 a is a side view of a sailboat with a standard height mast and atriangular 130% genoa superimposed with an area-equivalent overlapping,self-tacking Maxjib.

FIG. 7 is a side view of an overlapping Maxjib superimposed with anoriented ellipse along with specific leech curve calculation referencepoints and lines.

FIG. 7 a is a side view of an overlapping Maxjib set from a sailboat'sinner forestay depicting the relationship between the sail's leech curveand companion rig elements.

FIG. 8 is a side view of a non-overlapping Maxjib superimposed with anoriented ellipse along with specific leech curve calculation referencepoints and lines.

FIG. 8 a is a side view of a non-overlapping Maxjib set from asailboat's inner forestay depicting the relationship between the sail'sleech curve and companion rig elements.

FIG. 9 is a side view of a Maxmain and a superimposed oriented ellipsealong with specific leech curve calculation reference points and lines.

FIG. 9 a is a side view of a Maxmain set from a sailboat's mast showingthe relation of the sail's leech curve with companion rig elements.

FIG. 9 b is a partial perspective view of the head area of a Maxmainshowing details of a headboard-end plate combination.

FIG. 10 is a partial side view of a lowered, flaked self-boomed Maxmain.

FIG. 10 a is a partial perspective view of a lowered self-boomed Maxmainwith its lowest batten in a sunshade-water catchment configuration.

FIG. 11 is a partial side view of a fully deployed overlappingself-boomed Maxmain.

FIG. 11 a is a partial exploded side view of a rig contact zone of aSystem sail having an external batten reduction sleeve, an externalvariable density batten sleeve zone, and a semi-rigid batten with avariable density batten zone.

FIG. 11 b is a partial exploded side view of a rig contact zone of abatten-free System sail having an integral batten substitute with anintegral variable density zone.

DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

System headsail embodiments include overlapping Maxjib 26 andnon-overlapping Maxjib 28. System mainsail embodiments includeself-boomed Maxmain 30 and external-spar Maxmain 32. System sailembodiments may be used in various combinations, and each conforms to apredetermined, embodiment-specific set of maximum roach parameters.

Making and Using Applicant's Sail System

A person skilled in the art pertinent to the present Amendment will bereferred to as “a skilled sailmaker”. The Amendment's text and drawingswill explain each System sail's construction, installation and use in amanner sufficient to enable An ordinarily skilled sailmaker to make anduse Applicant's sail system. The Amendment's drawings show variousSystem sail embodiments in the scale of Applicant's thirty-three foot“test boat”.

Test Procedures

Applicant performed System prototype test series over an extended periodof time and approximately three thousand sea miles. System sailsemployed materials readily available from suppliers such as BainbridgeInternational. A description of each System embodiment's materials,construction methods, and cost follows.

Main Embodiments

-   -   Applicant's sail system or the “System” comprises the following        main embodiments, which are compatible with any conventionally        rigged sailboat:

-   1. Overlapping Maxjib 26;

-   2. Non-overlapping Maxjib 28;

-   3. Self-boomed Maxmain 30; and

-   5. External-spar Maxmain 32.

Making the Claimed System Using Embodiment—Common Sailmaking Materialsand Methods Elements of a Conventionally Rigged Sailboat

Each System sail embodiment is compatible with any conventionally riggedsailboat. A conventionally rigged sailboat comprises:

-   1. A mast 10 having a mast track 11 along the length of its aft    surface;-   2. Rigging wires connecting mast 10 to the sailboat, such wires    comprising:    -   A. forward rigging including a forestay 12; and in the case of a        twin-headstay sailboat, an inner forestay 14;    -   B. lateral rigging including a port and a starboard forward        lower shroud 16; and    -   C. aft rigging including a permanent backstay 18.

FIGS. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 a, 8 a, and 9 a each depict examples ofconventionally rigged sailboats. For clarity, only rigging elementspertinent to the text of this application are shown explicitly.

Embodiment—Common Sail Making Materials and Methods A System Sail'sFlexible Body, Battens, and Batten Accessories

-   1. Each System embodiment's flexible body and its batten pockets may    be made of either woven or laminated sail cloth; its batten pockets    connecting to the sail's body by sewing or gluing. Alternatively, a    System sail may be made using patented fiber-orienting lamination    sail making technology such as North Sails' “3D”™ or UK Sails' “Tape    Drive”™.-   2. In a manner known to skilled sailmakers, closed batten pockets    are reinforced at their closed leech ends to eliminate separate    leech batten boxes. A more detailed description of batten pocket    alternatives appears below in connection with System embodiments    using “Batten Substitute” technology.-   3. The text and drawings of the present cause, “the text” and “the    drawings”, respectively, disclose System sails incorporating various    combinations of horizontally or diagonally oriented conventional    round battens 38 and/or flat battens 40.-   4. Corresponding conventional batten boxes contain the luff ends of    each System sail's battens as seen, for example, in FIG. 4.    Typically, the two parts of such batten boxes are screwed together    with the sail between them.-   5. Readily available leech batten boxes 41, as seen in FIG. 4, can    contain a batten's leech end in the case of non-overlapping battens.    Typically, closed-end batten pockets contain the leech end of    overlapping battens as seen in FIGS. 4 and 5. FIG. 5, for example,    shows diagonal closed leech batten pockets 34 containing the sail's    overlapping upper diagonal battens, whereas a leech batten box 41    contains the leech end of the sail's non-overlapping bottom batten.

Embodiment—Common Sail Making Materials and Methods Head Area, Halyard,and Downhaul

-   1. Each System embodiment has a wide head 98 as opposed to the    pointed apex of a triangular sail. For example, the head of the test    boat's current Maxmain and Maxjib are each over twenty-five    centimeters wide. Head area detail including headboard-end plate    combination 74 a appears in FIGS. 9 a and 9 b.-   2. A halyard 15 attaches to the head of each System embodiment then    leads upward over a conventional mast pulley, or sheave, then down    to deck level in a conventional manner, as seen in FIG. 9 a.-   3. As seen in FIG. 9 b, headboard-end plate combination 74 made from    a rigid metallic or composite material combines the functions of a    two-part sail headboard, having a hole for halyard attachment plus    port and starboard wings, or end plates. Typically, the sail is    riveted between the two parts of the combination, which extends aft    from the sail's luff to its leech.-   4. Downhaul 52, which is tied or shackled to a metal grommet 75 just    below the sail's head, leads downward to a deck-mounted pulley 21 in    the axis of the sail's luff, and then aft to a boat's cockpit area    as seen in FIG. 1.-   5. The tack ring 23 of System sails typically connects to a strop    58, which connects the sail and the boat's deck as seen in FIG. 1.

Embodiment—Common Sail Making Materials and Methods Foot Area andConnections

-   1. Self-tacking sheet 64 attaches to a deck padeye 25, then leads to    a pulley 21 attached to Clew 102, then leads downwards to a    deck-mounted pulley 21, then leads aft to a sailboat's cockpit area    as seen in FIG. 1.-   2. A Maxjib's luff 99 connects to a forestay 12 or inner forestay 14    as seen in FIG. 1; a Maxmain's luff 99 connects to a mast track 11    as seen in FIG. 4.-   3. With one exception, the foot of each self-boomed System sail    embodiment has a single reinforced foot band 103 along the full    length of its foot 101 from tack to clew. The exception, self-boomed    Maxmain 32, as seen in FIG. 4, has a second reinforced foot band    running above the sail's foot from leech to luff. The reinforced    foot bands may be made of the same material as the sail, itself;    from a more stretch-resistant fabric such as Kevlar™; or even    incorporated into the sail by fiber-orienting technology. Skilled    sailmakers are familiar with materials and methods appropriate to    such a reinforced foot band.

Embodiment-Common Sail Making Materials and Methods Topping Lift andDeployment Control System

-   1. System sail embodiments typically employ a topping lift 55    connecting its clew to a point near the top of its companion mast as    seen in FIG. 1. An external spar Maxmain 32 set from a rigid boom    having a rigid external boom vang support strut could dispense with    a topping lift.-   2. Each System embodiment may comprise a deployment control System,    either lazy jacks 68, as seen in the amidships sail in FIG. 2, or a    patented Dutchman deployment control System 73 as seen in the    forward and aft sails of that figure. Preferred embodiments use a    Dutchman system. Since both deployment control systems are known to    skilled sailmakers, it will suffice to note that Lazy Jacks for    self-boomed System sails would attach directly to the foot of a    System sail embodiment, as opposed to their usual attachment to an    external boom 20:    -   A. In the case of lazy jacks 68, line pairs may attach directly        to locally reinforced areas along the foot of any System sail        embodiment, or to similarly spaced lazy jack tabs 71 made of        heavy fabric or webbing sewn to the sail.    -   B. In the case of a Dutchman deployment control System 73, two        or more Dutchman tabs 70 are sewn to a System sail embodiment at        specific points along its foot. Two or more Dutchman vertical        control lines 72 connect to each such Dutchman tab. Each such        control line leads upwards through a series of Dutchman eyelets        69 attached to the sail at specific vertical intervals. After        passing through a final eyelet near the sail's leech, each        vertical control line attaches to a topping lift 55.        Instructions for the above installation elements are provided        with each Dutchman system and are well-known to skilled        sailmakers.    -   C. Dutchman or Lazy Jack attachment points for a self-boomed        Maxmain are placed along a horizontal line running between the        sail's clew and its luff, as seen in FIGS. 4 and 4 a.

Embodiment-Common Sail Making Materials and Methods Single Line ReefingConfigurations

Each System sail embodiment can have one or more sets of reef points.Typically, a Maxjib would have one set of reef points and a Maxmainwould have two. Since a single-line reefing configuration applies inwardforce between a self-boomed sail's luff and leech reef points, thesail's semi-rigid batten layout must resist that force in order toremain in horizontal extension. Heretofore, it has been assumed that arigid external spar was the sole means of accomplishing such horizontalextension. FIGS. 1-5 show single-line reefing configurations forself-boomed System sails. Those drawings enable any skilled sailmaker toproduce the sail and companion reefing system given the knowledge andskill of those individuals.

Each such single-line reef level comprises a reefing line 54 thatattaches to or near to a sail's clew ring 22 then leads upward through afirst pulley 21 attached to a reinforced area of the sail's leech at adesired reef level; then horizontally forward through a second pulley 21attached to a reinforced area of the sail's luff; then downwards througha deck-mounted pulley 21 to terminate in a sailboat's cockpit, as seenin FIG. 4. The mechanical attachment of reef pulley to a sail iswell-known to skilled sailmakers.

Embodiment-Common Sail Making Materials and Methods Optimized RoachParameters

Each System sail embodiment's convex, approximately elliptical leechcurve conforms to embodiment-specific predetermined Optimized roachparameters based on the relationship of a sail's specific rig contactpoints and companion rig elements. Details of those parameters are fullydeveloped below as to enable one skilled in the art to produce SystemSails conforming to the disclosures of the present Application withoutresort to supplemental information.

Embodiment-Specific Sail Making Materials and Methods Overlapping Maxjib26: Foot Area and Connections

The foot of an overlapping Maxjib 26 terminates at its clew 102.Examples of fully deployed overlapping Maxjibs 26 are seen in FIGS. 2, 7and 7 a. Partial exploded views of overlapping Maxjibs are seen in FIGS.5 and 5 a.

-   -   1. A deck-mounted strop 58 connects the foot 101 of overlapping        Maxjib 26 to the deck of the companion sailboat at the sail's        tack ring 23. At its clew ring 22, the sail attaches to topping        lift 55 that leads upward to a point near the head of mast 10.        Self-tacking sheet 64, which has been tied or shackled to a        deck-mounted padeye 25, on one side of the companion sailboat,        passes through a pulley 21 shackled to clew ring 22. The sheet        then leads through another pulley 21 connected to the boat's        deck on the opposite side of the boat, then aft to the        sailboat's cockpit. Foot connection details for overlapping        Maxjib 26 are seen in FIGS. 5 and 5 a.

Overlapping Maxjib 26: Embodiment-specific Luff Connections

FIGS. 5 and 5 a show a combination of fork-end luff batten boxes 45 andsail hanks 46 connecting the luff of an overlapping Maxjib 26 to adiagonal inner forestay 14 at a series of connecting points. Each suchluff batten box comprises two parts which are assembled on either sideof the sail then screwed to each other. Each such sail hank is pressedor sewn to a metal grommet 75 fixed along the length of the sail's luff99. Each such sail hank clips onto inner forestay 14. The presentApplication enables one skilled in the art to produce fully functionalSystem sails without resort to further specifics concerning theinvention.

Overlapping Maxjib 26: Embodiment-specific Batten and ReefConfigurations

FIG. 5 shows a lowermost, or first round batten 38 of overlapping Maxjib26, contained at its luff end by a fork-end luff batten box 45 attachedto the sail's luff at a right angle and closed around inner forestay 14by a batten box fixing pin 47. That first round batten passes through adiagonal open batten pocket 35, which is sewn to the sail in thediagonal axis of the sail's first round batten 38, which battenterminates at or near the sail's clew 102, being contained by a leechbatten box 41.

The sail's second batten is also a round batten 38, which may have aslightly smaller diameter than the bottom round batten. For example, ifthe appropriate diameter for the bottom round batten 38 is twelvemillimeters, as in the case of the test boat, a diameter of tenmillimeters would be appropriate for the second round batten 38.

The sail's second round batten 38 attaches to the sail parallel to andabove the first round batten 38 by means of a diagonal closed battenpocket 34 and a fork-end luff batten box 45. Vertical spacing betweenthe bottom and second round battens controls the amount of sail reducedby a first reef level. For example, setting the first reef could reducetotal sail area by twenty-percent.

Above the sail's second round batten, at approximately equal verticalintervals, additional, or “upper battens”, are contained at theirrespective luff ends inside corresponding flat-end luff batten boxes 44fixed to the sail's luff at a right angle, as seen in FIG. 5 a, and attheir respective leech ends by diagonal closed batten pockets 34. Suchupper battens can be round battens 38 or flat battens 40, the formerbeing shown in FIG. 5 a and the latter in FIG. 3.

Upper battens can be more flexible than lower battens. For example, aflat batten twenty millimeters wide could typically serve as an upperbatten for a Maxjib whose bottom and second battens were round battenswith a diameter of twelve and ten millimeters, respectively, as was thecase with the test boat. Similar batten rigidity ratios would apply tosails of diverse size. Batten specifications known to one skilled in theart in combination with the present disclosures would allow one skilledin the art to make System Sails.

In addition to batten-end connection points, single or paired sail hankswould connect any System sail to a companion forestay 12 or innerforestay 14, as seen in FIG. 6 and FIG. 1. Interbatten sail hankstypically have equidistant spacing, as seen in FIG. 1. Skilledsailmakers may specify more than two inter-batten sail hanks accordingto boat and sail size.

As seen in FIGS. 5 and 5 a, leech reef point 62 of overlapping Maxjib 26comprises a metal grommet 75 pressed into a reinforced area near thesail's leech at a level just above the leech end of diagonal closedbatten pocket 34 containing the sail's lowest diagonal round batten 38.The sail's luff reef point 60 also comprises a metal grommet 75 pressedinto a reinforced area of the sail near its luff. Reef line 54 attachesto the sail 's clew ring 22, then leads upwards to a pulley 21 attachedto the sail at leech reef point 62, then leads horizontally through apulley 21 attached to the sail at luff reef point 60, then downwardsthrough a deck-mounted pulley 21 and aft to the boat's cockpit, as seenin FIGS. 5 and 5 a.

Where one or more additional reef points is desired, a relativelyflexible upper batten is replaced with a less flexible round batten 38and, if appropriate, a batten-specific corresponding batten box andclosed batten pocket for each additional set of reef points. A fork endluff batten box 45 would connect the sail to its forestay at each reefpoint as opposed to a sail hank. An additional reef line 54, andcorresponding sail-mounted and deck-mounted pulleys 21.

The configuration seen In FIG. 1 would be appropriate for most Maxjibapplications and the configuration of FIG. 5 for most Maxmainapplications. One skilled in the art would be familiar with appropriatebatten and reef line specifications according to sail and boat size andintended use.

Emobodiment—Specific Profile: Overlapping Maxjib 26

FIG. 7 shows perimeter lines for overlapping Maxjib 26 running fromMaxjib head 98 to tack 100, to clew 102. The convex aft segment of thesail's perimeter line is its overlapping Maxjib leech curve 104. FIGS. 7and 7 a show in detail the sail's overlapping Maxjib leech curve 104 aswell as calculation reference points and lines for drawing it.

The overlapping Maxjib leech curve 104 seen in FIG. 7 a, descends fromthe head 98 of overlapping Maxjib 26 through five successive leech limitpoints 96 to terminate at the sail's clew 102, forming an angle ofninety degrees or more with the foot of overlapping Maxjib 26. Forexample, the leech-to-foot angle shown in the overlapping Maxjib 26 ofFIGS. 7 and 7 a is 102-degrees.

Embodiment—Specific Maximum Roach Parameters Overlapping Maxjib 26

Overlapping Maxjib leech curve 104 conforms to five leech limit points96, which derive as follows:

-   -   A. FIG. 7A depicts the foot 101 and luff 99 of overlapping        Maxjib 26 relative to companion mast 10 and forward lower shroud        16, thus defining a lowermost point of contact between the leech        of the sail and companion rig elements, including a companion        mast or forward lower shroud,    -   B. FIG. 7 depicts a diagonal line descending from the sail's        head 98 to its initial Maxjib rig contact point 80, that line        being the sail's initial Maxjib rig contact diagonal 86.    -   C. A provisional or “construction” ellipse 110 having a midpoint        width approximately equal to the prospective sail's foot length        is oriented with its horizontal midpoint line over the sail's        foot, as in FIG. 7. The ellipse has been oriented so that its        aft perimeter approximately intersects the sail's clew 102.    -   D. As in FIG. 7, a vertical line disposed just forward of the        sail's tack 100 runs upwards from the level of initial        overlapping Maxjib contact point 80 to the level of the sail's        head 98, tracing the sail's vertical extremities construction        line 89.    -   E. Vertical extremities construction line 89 consists of six        equal segments delineated by equally spaced departure points.        Applicant considers a six-segment vertical extremities        construction line to be universally applicable and to assure a        smooth leech curve.        -   Dividing a vertical extremities line into less than six            segments would not produce a sufficiently smooth leech            curve. Dividing a vertical extremities line into more than            six segments would yield a smooth leech curve, but in            Applicant's opinion, no significant advantage would be            gained by such an increase in line segments. Contrarily, the            calculations would become cumbersome and increase the            possibility of sailmaker error.    -   F. A provisional or horizontal construction line 88 line runs        horizontally aft from each such departure point to the forward        surface of the sails' companion mast 10.    -   G. The intersection of each horizontal leech point construction        line 88 with rig contact diagonal 86 establishes a corresponding        leech measurement intersection 90.    -   H. From each leech measurement intersection 90, measure        horizontally forward to the sail's luff 99. Each such        measurement defines the length of a forward girth segment 92.    -   I. From uppermost to lowermost, the following percentage of the        length of each forward girth segment 92 yields the approximate        length of each corresponding aft girth segment 94: a. 90%, b.        72%; c. 43%, d. 24%, e. 6%, f. 0%.    -   J. Combining corresponding forward and aft girth segments,        measure the resulting distance aft from the sail's luff along        each horizontal construction line 88.    -   K. Each such measurement delimits a corresponding leech limit        point 96. Thus, if uppermost forward girth segment 92 were        twenty-centimeters long, a 90% aft girth segment 94 would be        eighteen-centimeters long.    -   L. Combining the uppermost forward and aft girth segments would        yield an uppermost leech limit point 96 thirty-eight centimeters        aft of the sail's luff along the axis of the prospective sail's        uppermost horizontal construction line 88. The prospective        sail's other leech limit points 96 are similarly derived.    -   M. Overlapping Maxjib leech curve 104 begins at the prospective        sail's head 98, descends successively through respective leech        limit points 96 to its clew 102, to form an angle with the        prospective sail's foot 101 equal to or in excess of        ninety-degrees. For example, the sail shown in FIGS. 7 and 7 a        has a leech-to-foot angle of approximately 102-degrees and a        wide head area that clears the forward surface of the sail's        companion mast 10 by at least five centimeters.    -   N. To achieve an optimum leech curve, overlapping Maxjib leech        curve 104 conforms approximately to oriented ellipse 110 while        respecting leech limit points 96. Once the sail's        two-dimensional profile is finalized, batten spacing appropriate        to specific use and sail budget are specified. Leech limit        points are not necessarily batten placement points. One skilled        in the art can readily specify batten specifications appropriate        to the size, weight, and use of each client's boat.    -   O. Fine synchronization of construction ellipse 110 and        overlapping Maxjib leech curve 104 allows transition from the        perimeter calculation stage shown in FIG. 7 to the final design        configuration seen in FIG. 7 a.

Embodiment—Common Sail Making Materials and Methods Non-overlappingMaxjib 28: Foot Area and Connections

1. The connection of a non-overlapping Maxjib 28 to a companion vesselis identical to that of an overlapping counter part, as depicted inFIGS. 5 and 5 a. The two Maxjib types are best compared by reference toFIG. 2, which depicts the two Maxjib types on the same vessel.

2. In the following respects, non-overlapping Maxjib 28 can replicateoverlapping Maxjib 26:

-   -   a. sailcloth and batten specification as well as construction        methods;    -   b. leech and luff batten box specifications;    -   c. sail hank specification and spacing;    -   d. reef line configurations;    -   e. downhaul configurations; and    -   f. topping lift configurations.

Embodiment—Specific Sail Making Materials and Methods Non-overlappingMaxjib 28: Perimeters

FIG. 1 shows the perimeter lines of a non-overlapping Maxjib 28. Thesail's perimeter line runs from its head 98 to its tack 100, to its clew102. The convex aft segment of the sail's perimeter line is itsnon-overlapping Maxjib leech curve 106.

FIG. 8 a shows a non-overlapping Maxjib leech curve 106, and FIG. 8 bshows calculation reference points for drawing the depicted,non-overlapping Maxjib. As seen in FIG. 8 a, non-overlapping Maxjibleech curve 106 descends from the sail's head 98 through five successiveleech limit points 96 to terminate at the sail's clew 102, forming anangle of approximately ninety degrees with the foot of non-overlappingMaxjib 28. For example, the leech-to-foot angle shown in thenon-overlapping Maxjib 28 of FIGS. 8 and 8 a is 91-degrees.

Embodiment—Specific Optimized Maximum Roach Parameters: Non-overlappingMaxjib 26

Non-overlapping Maxjib leech curve 106, as seen in FIG. 8 a, conforms tofive leech limit points 96, each of which is derived as follows:

-   1. FIG. 8 a depicts the foot 101 and luff 99 of a prospective    non-overlapping Maxjib 28 relative to companion mast 10 and port and    starboard forward lower shrouds 16, The sail's clew 102 passes no    closer than approximately five centimeters forward of companion mast    10 and port and starboard forward lower shrouds 16 as the sail is    tacked or jibed.-   2. As seen in FIG. 8, a descending diagonal line from the sail's    head 98 to its clew 102 is the sail's head-to-clew diagonal 85.    -   P. A provisional or “constructon” ellipse 110 having a midpoint        width approximately equal to the prospective sail's foot length        is oriented, as in FIG. 8, so that its vertical midpoint line        lies parallel to the sail's foot, and its aft extremity        approximately intersects the sail's clew 102. The horizontal        midpoint line of the ellipse lies over the sail's foot.-   3. Along an axis approximately above the companion sailboat's bow, a    vertical line runs upwards from the level of the prospective sail's    tack 100 to the level of its head 98, tracing the sail's vertical    extremities construction line 89.-   4. Vertical extremities construction line 89 consists of six equal    segments, thus deriving five equally spaced departure points between    the top and bottom of vertical extremities construction line 89.-   5. A provisional or “construction” line runs horizontally from each    such departure point aft to the forward surface of the prospective    sails' companion mast 10. Each such horizontal construction line is    a horizontal construction line 88.-   6. The intersection of each of the five horizontal construction    lines 88 with the sail's head-to-clew diagonal 85 establishes five    leech measurement intersections 90.-   7. From each leech measurement intersection 90, measure horizontally    forward to the sail's luff 99. Each such measurement defines the    length of a forward girth segment 92.-   8. From uppermost to lowermost, the following percentage of the    length of each forward girth segment 92 yields the approximate    length of a corresponding aft girth segment 94: 80%, b. 30%; c.    20%, d. 6%, and e. 1%.-   9. Combining corresponding forward and aft girth segments results in    a horizontal distance aft from the sail's luff along each of the    sail's five horizontal construction lines 88.-   10. Each such combination of forward and aft girth segments    terminates at one of the sail's five leech limit points 96. Thus, if    uppermost forward girth segment 92 were twenty-centimeters long, an    80% aft girth segment 94 would be sixteen-centimeters long.-   11. Combining the uppermost forward and aft girth segments would    yield an uppermost leech limit point 96 thirty-six centimeters aft    of the sail's luff along the axis of the prospective sail's    uppermost horizontal construction line 88. Each of the prospective    sail's five leech limit points 96 is similarly derived.-   12. As seen in FIG. 8 a, non-overlapping Maxjib leech curve 106    begins at the head 98 of the prospective sail, descends successively    through its five leech limit points 96 to its clew 102, forming an    angle of approximately ninety-degrees with the prospective sail's    foot 101. For example, FIGS. 8 and 8 a each show a non-overlapping    Maxjib 28 having a leech-to-foot angle of approximately 91-degrees    and a wide head area that clears the forward surface of the sail's    companion mast 10 by at least five centimeters.-   13. The resulting non-overlapping Maxjib leech curve 106 conforms as    closely as possible to oriented ellipse 110 while respecting all    leech limit points 96.-   14. Fine synchronization of construction ellipse 110 and    non-overlapping Maxjib leech curve 106 completes the transition from    the perimeter calculation stage shown in FIG. 8 to the final design    configuration seen in FIG. 8 a.

Embodiment—Specific Sail Making Materials and Methods Self-boomedMaxmain 30: Battens, Batten Boxes, and Reef System

-   1. As seen in FIG. 3, self-boomed Maxmain 30 employs a first    diagonal round batten 38, which runs downwards from its clew to its    tack.-   2. Batten, batten pocket, and mast connection details are seen in    FIGS. 4 and 4 a. As seen in those figures, the aft end of the sail's    first diagonal round batten 38 passes through a diagonal batten    pocket 35 sewn to the sail and terminates and terminates in a    conventional screwed-on leech batten box 41 attaching to the sail at    or near its clew.-   3. A sail slide luff batten box 43 attached to the sail's luff    contains the forward end of the sail's first round diagonal batten    38, which forms a batten-to-luff angle of approximately 72-degrees.-   4. At its tack, its head, and at each reef point, the sail connects    to companion mast track 11 by a combination of a sail slide 48 sewn    to a metal grommet 75. A similar grommet-slide combination connects    the sail to companion mast track 11 along the sail's luff from at    intervals that one skilled in the art would specify according to    sail size, boat weight and intended use.-   5. Self-boomed Maxmain 30 has two reinforced foot bands 103; a    first, diagonal one along the length of its diagonal foot 101 and a    second, horizontal one running from the sail's leech to its luff    just above the sail's lowest set of reef points 60 and 62.-   6. Dutchman tabs 70 are sewn to the sail at the level of a    self-boomed Maxmain's second, horizontal reinforced foot band 103,    as seen in FIGS. 4, 4 a, 10, and 10 a.-   7. At the point approximately 10 mm. below the intersection between    a fully-hoisted Maxmain's clew 102 and its companion mast track 11,    a mast track insert 118 screws into mast track 11.-   8. Above mast track insert 118, a second, horizontally oriented    round batten configuration is attached to the sail; connecting at    its leech end by a horizontal closed batten pocket 36 and at its    luff end by a sail slide luff batten box 43 as seen in FIG. 4.-   9. At intervals above the sail's second, horizontal batten,    additional horizontal, “upper battens” attach to the sail as seen in    FIG. 2. The sail's upper, horizontal battens may be round or flat,    and are typically more flexible than the sail's two lower, diagonal    battens. Each upper batten is contained at its leech end by a    horizontal closed batten pocket 36, and at its luff end by a sail    slide luff batten box 43.-   10. Leech reef point 62 of self-boomed Maxmain 30 comprises a metal    grommet 75 pressed into a reinforced area near the sail's leech at a    level just below the horizontal closed batten pocket 36    corresponding to the sail's second lowermost batten. The sail's luff    reef point 60 comprises an identical metal grommet pressed into a    reinforced area near the sail's luff at a point horizontally    opposite the leech reef point.-   11. Reef line 54 attaches to the sail's clew ring 22, then leads    upwards through a pulley 21 attached to the sail at leech reef point    62, then horizontally through a pulley 21 attached at the sail's    luff reef point 60, then downwards through a deck-mounted pulley 21    and aft to the boat's cockpit.-   12. For each additional reef level, replace an upper batten with a    round batten 38 with rigidity approximately equal to the diagonal    batten immediately below it. Each such additional reef level would    also requires a corresponding batten box; batten pocket: luff and    leech reef points; corresponding pulleys and an additional reef    line.-   13. One reef point would be typical for coastal sailing and two reef    points for offshore use. Skilled sailmakers are familiar with    specifying the placement and number of reef points according to    diverse factors including the sail's intended use and size; boat    size; and local weather conditions.-   14. FIG. 4 show details of a self-boomed Maxmain 30 with one reef    level in a fully deployed configuration while FIG. 4 a shows the    sail in a reefed configuration. The sail's self-tacking sheet    attaches to a deck-mounted padeye 25 from which point it runs    through a pulley 21 attached to clew ring 22, then through a    deck-mounted pulley 21 on the opposite side of the sailboat's deck,    then aft to the boat's cockpit.-   15. The self-tacking sheet layout shown in FIGS. 4 and 4 a gives    sufficient mechanical advantage for boats up to about eight meters    long, but a four or six-part mainsheet pulley System would be    typical for boats over nine-meters long, such specification being    well-known to one skilled in the art.-   16. The number of battens used for Maxmains can vary according to    boat size and other factors known to skilled sailmakers, but the    five-batten layout seen in FIG. 1 is appropriate for most Maxmains.

Embodiment—Specific Perimeters: Self-boomed Maxmain 30

-   1. The aft sail of FIG. 2 shows the perimeter line of self-boomed    Maxmain 30, which traces a convex line from the sail's head    downwards to its clew, then forward along its foot, and finally    upwards along the sail's luff to join the sail's head. The convex    aft segment of the sail is Maxmain leech curve 108.-   2. FIGS. 9 and 9 a show details of overlapping Maxmain leech curve    108 as well as underlying calculation reference points and lines    that would enable one skilled in the art to make the sail.    Calculation of a leech curve for a self-boomed or external-spar    Maxmain are identical.-   3. As seen in FIG. 9 a, Maxmain leech curve 108 descends from the    sail's head 98 through five successive leech limit points 96 to    terminate at the sail's clew 102, forming an angle of approximately    ninety-degrees to the horizontal at the level of the sail's clew.    That angle, for example, is 85-degrees for the sail shown in FIGS. 9    and 9 a.

Self-boomed Maxmain 30: Optimized Roach Parameters

Maxmain leech curve 108 conforms to five leech limit points 96, whichare derived as follows

FIG. 9 a depicts the Maxmain leech curve 108 and luff 99 of aprospective self-boomed Maxmain 30 relative to a companion mast 10 andpermanent backstay 18 and also depicts the prospective sail's foot 99measurements and the lowest point at which the sail could contact thebackstay, that point being the prospective sail's initial Maxmain rigcontact point 82.

-   1. As seen in FIG. 9 a, a provisional or “construction” line    descends from the level of the sailboat's masthead to the point at    which permanent backstay 18 connects to the sailboat. The resulting    line is the sail's backstay contact diagonal 84.-   2. As seen in FIG. 9, a provisional or “construction” ellipse 110    having a midpoint width approximately equal to the prospective    sail's foot length is oriented so that its aft perimeter    approximately intersects the sail's clew, and its forward perimeter    approximately intersects the sail's tack.-   3. A vertical line runs upwards in an axis forward of the sail's    tack 100 from the level of initial Maxmain contact point 82 to the    level of the sail's head 98, tracing the sail's vertical extremities    construction line 89.-   4. Vertical extremities construction line 89 consists of six equal    segments, thus deriving five equally spaced departure points between    the top and bottom of vertical extremities construction line 89.-   5. A provisional or construction” line runs horizontally aft from    each such departure point through and aft of permanent backstay 18.    Each such horizontal construction line is a horizontal construction    line 88.-   6. The intersection of each of the sail's five horizontal leech    point construction lines 88 with its rig contact diagonal 86    establishes five leech measurement intersections 90.-   7. From each leech measurement intersection 90, measure horizontally    forward to the sail's luff 99. Each such measurement defines the    length of a forward girth segment 92.-   8. From uppermost to lowermost, the following percentages of the    length of each forward girth segment 92 yields the approximate    length of corresponding aft girth segments 94: a. 90%, b. 72%; c.    43%, d. 24%, e. 6%.-   9. Combining corresponding forward and aft girth segments results in    a horizontal distance aft from the sail's luff along each of the    sail's five horizontal construction lines 88.-   10. Each such combination of forward and aft girth segments    terminates at one of the sail's five leech limit points 96. Thus, if    uppermost forward girth segment 92 were twenty-centimeters long, a    90% aft girth segment 94 would be eighteen-centimeters long.-   11. Combining the uppermost forward and aft girth segments would    yield an uppermost leech limit point 96 located thirty-eight    centimeters aft of the sail's luff along the axis of the prospective    sail's uppermost horizontal construction line 88. Each of the    prospective sail's five leech limit points 96 is similarly derived.-   12. Overlapping Maxmain leech curve 108 begins at the prospective    sail's head 98, descends successively through its five leech limit    points 96 to its clew 102, forming an angle with the prospective    sail's foot 101 of approximately ninety-degrees. For example, the    sail shown in FIGS. 9 and 9 a has a leech-to-foot angle of    approximately 85-degrees and a wide head area that clears the sail's    companion permanent backstay 18 by at least five centimeters while    tacking and jibing.-   13. Adjust the resulting leech curve to conform as closely as    possible to oriented ellipse 110 while respecting all leech limit    points 96.-   14. Fine synchronization of construction ellipse 110 and overlapping    Maxmain leech curve 108 completes the transition from the perimeter    calculation stage shown in FIG. 9 to the final sail design    configuration seen in FIG. 9 a.

Embodiment—Specific Sail Making Materials and Methods: External SparMaxmain 32

External Spar Maxmain 32 differs from the self-boomed Maxmain seen inFIGS. 4 and 4 a in that the external spar sail's foot is horizontal andis attached to an external spar, typically a boom 20, as seen in FIG. 1.In addition, the sail's battens are all horizontal.

Embodiment—Common Sail Making Materials and Methods: External SparMaxmain 32 and Self-boomed Maxmain 30

External-spar Maxmain 32 replicates self-boomed Maxmain 30 in thefollowing respects:

-   -   A. Sailcloth and batten material specification and construction        methods:    -   B. Reef line configuration;    -   C. Downhaul configuration;    -   D. Sail-to-mast connections;    -   E. Topping lift configuration; and    -   F. Maxmain leech curve.

Embodiment—Specific Properties: Batten, Foot and Luff ConnectionsExternal-Spar Maxmain 32

External-spar Maxmain 32, shown in FIG. 1, differs from self-boomedMaxmain 30 in its batten orientation and foot connections:

-   1. External-spar Maxmain 32 uses only horizontal battens. Typically,    the sail's battens and corresponding batten boxes would all be of    the same type, for example, twenty millimeter wide flat battens 40    with batten boxes appropriate to flat battens, as seen in FIG. 1.-   2. FIG. 1 shows the tack 100 of external-spar Maxmain 32 connecting    to the forward and aft ends of its companion boom 20.

History of the System

Cruising sailboats with freestanding masts had appeared by 1980, notablythe Freedom cat ketch series. Despite their advantages, boats withfreestanding masts would capture less than 5% of the market.Conventionally rigged sailboats would continue to dominate themainstream sailboat market, and increased convenience would increasinglydominate market priorities.

By 1985 furling working sails had taken the market from hoistedcounterparts, proving the market viability of easily handled sails, evenif furling configurations compromised performance and cost more thancounterpart hoisted configurations. Sailors and designers could notimagine hoisted sails with the convenience of furling sails.Nonetheless, Applicant set out to develop hoisted sails that surpassedfurling counterparts on every point of comparison including cost,performance and convenience.

A majority of 1990 sailors wanted more power, but also wanted to workless while sailing. Designers ignored this, instead looking to costly,inconvenient performance compromises such as free-flying sails, tallrigs and exotic mast and sail materials for increased revenues.Contrarily, Applicant sought low-cost elliptical working sails thatwould work with any boat's rigging. Unexpectedly, the System deliveredsynergisms that assured optimum performance and convenience regardlessof crew size or conditions using only two sails, a hoisted Maxmain and ahoisted self-tacking Maxjib.

System Design Objective Theoretical Background of the Present Invention

The practical problem for System design was first, getting a maximumamount of the most efficient type of sail area to work with anysailboat's existing rig; and second, controlling that sail areaconveniently from the safety of a boat's cockpit.

Triangular sails were the worst possible aerodynamic solution. “From theperspective of induced drag, the worst shape for an airfoil is atriangle, the shape of a headsail and, to a lesser extent a main(Whidden, The Art and Science of Sails, St. Martin's Press (1990).

Apparent Design Obstacles

Reducing System design objectives to practice presented the followingissues:

-   1. Could elliptical form, which had proven its efficiency for    airplane wings be reduced to practice for working sails of    conventionally rigged sailboats? The long-standing and obvious    answer was, “no”.-   2. Hoisted self-tacking jibs, which offered maximum safety and    economy, were necessarily small, hard-to-handle sails useful only in    wind speeds above fifteen knots. Could a small hoisted self-tacking    sail somehow evolve into a “big” self-tacking sail? The obvious    answer was, “no.”-   3. Viewed inversely, could a big, hoisted overlapping headsail that    required separate port and starboard sheets somehow keep its sail    area yet tack and jibe automatically with just a single self-tacking    sheet, then somehow get “smaller” again as wind speed increased? The    obvious answer was “no”.-   4. Designers had systematically considered large-roach mainsails,    which overlapped a companion permanent backstay 18 unfeasible for    conventionally rigged boats. Large-roach mainsails were considered    feasible only for “unconventionally rigged” boats having movable, or    running backstays or free-standing rigs having no permanent backstay    at all. Such boats constituted less than five-percent of modern    sailboats.

Why Overlapping Self-tacking Hoisted Sails were Inconceivable

-   1. Overlapping hoisted headsails inevitably required separate port    and starboard sheets and imposed high tacking effort, whereas    self-tacking headsails controlled by only one self-tacking sheet    enabled tacking and jibing without crew intervention. “Overlapping”    and “self-tacking” sails had obviously incompatible properties.-   2. In addition, designers invariably used the term “self-tacking    sail” to describe a “non-overlapping jib” and the term “overlapping    sail” to describe a “genoa”.-   3. To restore order, the term “self-tacking” describes a sail whose    clew 102, controlled by only a only a single self-tacking sheet 64,    tacks and jibes across a sailboat's deck without contacting rig    elements. Used precisely, the term “self-tacking” is a term of    function concerning only the clew and sheet configuration of a sail    without regard to whether any part of the sail other than its clew    or the sail's sheet overlaps the boat's mast or rigging.    -   Stated precisely and simply, a self-tacking sail is a sail        controlled a single sheet that is capable of repeatedly tacking        and jibing without crew intervention. The term has been misused        because designers have always assumed that no part of a        self-tacking sail could contact rig elements.-   4. Used precisely, the term “Overlapping” describes the static    physical relation between a sail's perimeters and a sailboat's rig    elements without regard to whether the sail might be capable of    repeatedly tacking and jibing without crew intervention. Designers    have always assumed that tacking and jibing an overlapping sail    required crew to alternately tension separate port and starboard    sheets. Thus have two unperceived, invariable errors in terminology    locked designers inescapably to the worst possible profile for    working sails, the triangular profile. A transition to the optimum    profile for working sails, the elliptical profile was heretofore    unthinkable, as was a self-tacking overlapping headsail.

Questions Designers Never Asked

Had designers pursued functional inquiry rather than assumptions, theymight have asked, “Can a headsail have both light air power andself-tacking convenience?” Stated otherwise, “can an overlappingheadsail comprise a self-tacking function?” Glib answers might well haveincluded, “genoas can't self-tack, and pigs can't fly.”

Unobvious Questions

The following questions were so far beyond what the prior art deemedpossible, that the questions, themselves, were ignored.

-   1. Could more efficient semi-elliptical hoisted headsails and    mainsails overlap a boat's rig elements yet retain self-tacking    convenience and safety?-   2. Could hoisted, self-tacking semi-elliptical headsails and    mainsails satisfy wind speeds from five to thirty-five knots yet    offer self-tacking safety and convenience for any conventionally    rigged sailboat?-   3. Could an integral roach support System consisting of semi-rigid    battens eliminate the need for costly, heavy external spars as well    as external vangs?

Embodiment—Common Design Problems

-   1. Reducing to practice all-condition Optimized working sails    obliged Applicant to develop predetermined maximum roach overlap    parameters that reconciled optimum sail shape, maximum surface area,    and safe, reliable, all-condition tacking without unusual sail wear.    Heretofore, such parameters have been considered unfeasible.-   2. To meet convenience and safety objectives, such sails would have    to integrate cockpit-controlled downhaul, deployment control, and    single-line reefing functions. Single-line reefing had always    required that an external spar hold a sail's foot in horizontal    extension against inward reef line forces. Design objectives called    for self-boomed Optimized self-tacking sails with single-line    reefing.-   3. Finally, an integral sail framework would have to assure both    roach support and optimum sail shape through a wide range of wind    and sea conditions.

Maxmain—Specific Problems

Orienting the luff end of a Maxmain's lowest batten upwards might haveprovided a functional triangulation, but the upwards-oriented battenwould have been longer than the sail's foot 101, making it impossible tosafely lower or reef the sail.

-   1. Nor would safety or convenience allow leaving the lower part of a    sail permanently hoisted and lowering the rest of the sail onto the    permanently hoisted bottom batten.-   2. Similarly, attaching the bottom diagonal batten and tack of the    sail to the mast with an adjustable line, or “jackline” as in Bierig    could not satisfy safety and convenience requirements.    Theoretically, a jackline might enable lowering the sail. However,    handling a sail with a free-floating tack would be unsafe in even    slight seas. Even if a jackline were functional in the present    context, a separate jackline would be required for each diagonal    batten, creating a tangle of control lines that even the most    skilled crew could not safely manage.-   3. An inclined ramp inside a boat's mast might allow a diagonal    batten to be raised and lowered, but would be economically    unrealistic for broad market penetration and would interfere with    internal mast halyards.

Downwards-oriented Bottom Batten: Self-boomed Maxmain 30

-   1. Orienting a self-boomed Maxmain's lower batten downwards between    its clew 102 and companion mast 10 would reverse the Maxjib    triangulation, bringing into force passive sail control, as opposed    to active sail control. A Maxjib's lowest batten actively holds its    foot in extension and controls upwards clew movement, actively    converting forestay energy to pushing the sail's clew down and aft    thus holding its foot in extension (self-booming) and resisting    upward clew movement (self-vanging).-   2. Unexpectedly, reversing the Maxjib concept yielded self-boomed    Maxmain 30 whose bottom batten passively booms and vangs the sail.    Unlike a headsail attached to a diagonal, semi-rigid forestay, a    Maxmain attaches to a rigid, vertical companion mast 10, which does    not transfer the wind's energy to the sail's lowest batten. Rather,    a mast acts only as a rigid connection point for the forward end of    a Maxmain's bottom batten, thus preventing forward or aft batten    movement. Thus blocked in a fore and aft plane, a Maxmain's bottom    batten passively resists both forward and upwards clew movement,    thus booming and vanging the sail while enabling it to react    dynamically to changing wind and sea conditions.-   3. The unexpected “reverse triangulation” of Self-boomed Maxmain 30    satisfies reefing requirements while self-booming and vanging the    sail. The sail's initial triangulation comprises its    downwards-oriented diagonal batten, its bottom horizontal batten,    and its companion mast. Lowering the sail's second horizontal batten    onto its bottom horizontal batten meets reefing requirements    precisely. As seen in FIG. 4 a, lowering a Maxmain for reefing    brings its second horizontal batten to rest on the sail's bottom    horizontal batten, thus reinforcing the sail's initial, fully    deployed triangulation.-   4. A self-boomed Maxmain 30, like a Maxjib responds dynamically to    changing wind and wave conditions through the flexing action of its    inexpensive, lightweight semi-rigid batten layout. The sail's    battens are less prone to breakage than a rigid external spar in the    event of contact with a rig element, and they pose less danger to    crew or boat in the case of an accidental jibe or other unforeseen    maneuver.-   5. Unexpectedly, self-boomed Maxmain 30 eliminates external spars    while actually gaining functionality. The sail's downwards-oriented    bottom diagonal batten provides a simple, low cost design solution    as opposed to multiple jacklines or other complicated configurations    that would not work in practice. The sail eliminates costly booms    and the need for external vanging devices.-   6. Adjusting the tension along an external-spar-mainsail's foot    usually requires that a crewmember adjust an “outhaul” line that    pulls the sail's foot aft. The flexing action of a Maxmain's    semi-rigid battens performs this task continually without crew    intervention, thus enhancing average speed by an ongoing automatic    attention to sail shape.

Maxmain—Specific Unexpected Results

-   1. Unexpectedly, self-boomed Maxmain 30 eliminated external spars    while actually gaining functionality without resort to multiple    jacklines or other complicated line arrangements.-   2. Shorthanded crews use outhaul lines infrequently because their    use is inconvenient and sometimes dangerous. As a result, sail shape    is infrequently adjusted to changing conditions. A System sail's    semi-rigid battens allow them to “breathe”, thus adjusting sail    shape continually without crew intervention. Automatic sail shape    adjustment both reduces crew fatigue and increases average boat    speed.

Insolvable Problem, Unobvious Logic, and Functional Solutions

Applicant proceeded from the following logic: While a self-tackingheadsail's clew must not contact rig elements, its upper leech may,indeed, contact rig elements provided that the sail can tack and jibreliably and safely in all sailing conditions. Ignoring the prevailingsail design assumption that overlapping sails could not self-tack,Applicant looked for a way to make overlapping headsails self-tack.

The solution lay in combining the foot length of a self-tacking jib witha convex leech curve, yielding a sail design whose integral structurecould support a sail's roach area, yet allow it to tack and jibereliably and safely across rig elements in all sailing conditionsOverlapping Maxjib 26, which looks much like a butterfly's wing,provides surface area equivalent to that of a triangular genoa butself-tacks without crew intervention.

Maxmain prototype testing confirmed that battens with overlaps in excessof seventy-centimeters passed easily across the test boat's permanentbackstay 18 without hanging up or breaking. Following initial rigcontact, a self-boomed Maxmain “rolls” across its companion permanentbackstay from initial Maxmain rig contact point 82 upwards.

Maxmain 28 backstay-batten deflection tests should apply equally totacking and jibing an overlapping Maxjib 26. An overlapping Maxjib mustbe able to pass across companion mast 10 and port and starboard forwardlower shrouds 16 as it tacks and jibes. A lower shroud is inclineddiagonally inward, away from the sail's tacking arc, thus reducing theshroud's encumbrance to tacking and jibing. A mast 10 has a larger andsmoother exterior surface radius than a rigging wire, thus presentingless resistance to a sail tacking or jibing across it than a backstay.

Optimized roach parameters for overlapping Maxjib 26 and self-boomed 30or external-spar 32 Maxmains each use a calculation base line thataccounts for potential rig element contact during tacking or jibing.This line relates to actual obstructions to tacking and jibing, notarbitrary points on the sail, itself. Thus, System roach parametercalculations relate to permanent backstay 18, to a line running from thesail's initial Maxjib rig contact point 80 to its head 98; a companionmast 10 or forward lower shrouds 16.

Typically, a System sail's clew 102 should clear a companion mast 10 andforward inner shrouds 16 by at least five centimeters. Subject to theforegoing, System sails' convex leech curves conform as closely aspossible to an ellipse 110, as seen in FIGS. 7, 8, and 9.

Reduction of Theory to Practice

Prototype testing was performed with a non-overlapping Maxjib 28 and anexternal-spar Maxmain 32 on the thirty-three foot conventionally rigged“test boat”. Prototypes proved entirely reliable in all wind conditions.Boat speed increased by fifteen-percent, and the test boat heeled fivedegrees or 15% less on average. The non-overlapping Maxjib's low-costdiagonal fiberglass battens provided dynamic self-booming and vanging inchanging conditions, and the sail's cockpit-controlled sail-deployment,reefing and downhaul configurations eliminated on-deck sail handlingentirely.

Maxmain prototypes having a maximum roach overlap of over 70-centimeterseasily crossed the test boat's permanent backstay in winds of five knotsor less and at boat speeds as low as three knots. The sails proved justas durable as a non-overlapping mainsail. Subsequent generations ofMaxjib and Maxmain prototypes confirmed the feasibility and reliabilityof predetermined, Optimized maximum roach parameters for the mainsailsand headsails of conventionally rigged sailboats.

Having reduced seemingly impossible predetermined maximum roachparameters to practice, Applicant extended the System's design conceptsto create unique hoisted self-boomed, self-vanged sail designs foroverlapping self-tacking Optimized headsails. Overlapping Maxjibs 28embody those concepts. To extend the benefits of his predeterminedmaximum roach parameters to boats fitted with rigid booms, Applicantintegrated those parameters into the design of external spar Maxmain 32.

Each prototype System sail proved fully functional using readilyavailable sail making methods and materials. In addition, System designswere conceived with a view to accommodating and benefiting from evolvingbatten and sailcloth technology. An example of such accommodation isdescribed subsequently in connection with “batten substitutetechnology”.

Itemized Results of Ongoing Prototype Test Program

In overview, prototype testing resulted in cockpit controlled,all-condition self-tacking, hoisted Optimized headsails and mainsailsthat were easily deployed, reefed, and recovered. Ongoing prototypetesting repeatedly confirmed the following, often unexpected results:

-   -   1. Optimized hoisted System sails emulate taller masts without        the associated cost.    -   2. Optimized hoisted System sails create minimum inter-sail        turbulence, thus assuring optimum interface with each other.    -   3. Reliable predetermined maximum roach parameters are feasible        for mainsails and headsails any sailboats, provided that such        parameters are related specifically to potential rig contact        points.    -   4. Rig overlap of an Optimized sail not only increases boat        speed and reduces heel, but also accelerates a boat through        tacks, the contrary of what would have been expected.    -   5. In practice, extensive batten deflection tests confirmed easy        mainsail passage across a permanent backstay even in light        winds. At no time during extended prototype testing did a batten        break, or was unusual sail wear perceptible.    -   6. Prototype overlapping Maxmain batten deflection tests and        non-overlapping Maxjib batten tests further confirmed the        feasibility of self-boomed overlapping Maxmains and Maxjibs,        each of which should tack and jibe as easily as the test boat's        external-spar Maxmain prototypes.

Unexpected Results in Practice

-   1. Among numerous unexpected results, perhaps the least expected was    that a System sail's rig overlap actually enhanced boat speed    through a tacking maneuver. For example, as a Maxmain tacked or    jibed, the sail's head contacted companion permanent backstay 18;    momentarily laid against the backstay, or “aback”; then crossed the    backstay in a release of energy that accelerated the boat through    the end of the tack or jibe. Heretofore, holding a sail aback    required crew to manipulate two sheets and was not possible with a    self-tacking sail. Overlapping Maxmains systematically enhance    tacking and jibing, and overlapping Maxjibs 26 will undoubtedly    replicate that performance.-   2. System Maxjibs and Maxmains responded dynamically to changing    wind and sea conditions thanks to the flexing of their semi-rigid    battens, which also assured self-booming and vanging. Designers had    long assumed that booming a sail required a rigid external spar,    Contrary to the teachings of the prior art, the flexing properties    of a semi-rigid batten enabled self-booming as opposed to    undermining it.-   3. Similarly, the bottom diagonal round batten 38 of non-overlapping    Maxjib 28 prototypes not only held the sail's foot in horizontal    extension, but also resisted inward reef line forces. Since the    bottom round batten of an overlapping Maxjib 26 mirrors that of a    non-overlapping Maxjib 28, the overlapping Maxjib will enjoy equal    advantages.-   4. Unexpectedly, self-boomed Maxmain 30 eliminated external spars    while actually gaining functionality. Adjusting the tension along a    mainsail's foot enhances sail performance by matching sail depth to    wind speed but requires that a crewmember adjust an “outhaul” line    that pulls the sail's foot aft. Small crews who want to sail    conveniently without constant sail adjustment frequently ignore    outhauls altogether.-   5. Self-boomed Maxmain 30 at once gains functional and economic    advantages by eliminating a rigid spar, which has heretofore been    considered indispensable for reefable hoisted mainsails. In    addition, a self-boomed sail reduces boat weight and cost.-   6. The downwards-oriented bottom batten of Self-boomed Maxmain 30    self-booms the sail and provides a unique, self-reinforcing reef    triangulation. The cockpit-controlled sail is fully functional    without resort to jacklines or other cumbersome line configurations.-   7. The downward, diagonal orientation of a self-boomed Maxmain's    bottom batten enables use of the lower part of the sail for water    catchment and as a sun awning once the tack of the sail is freed    from its mast connections. FIGS. 10 and 10 a show the sail in a    stowed configuration, and in a sun shade-water catchment    configuration, respectively.

The foregoing part of the present Application, which describes thephysical aspects of Applicant's invention, discloses how to make as toallow one ordinarily skilled in the pertinent art to make the invention.

Main Embodiments: Rationale; Installation; and Operation

Below, the present Amendment discloses each main System embodiment alongwith particular “rationale”, “installation”, and “operation” details ofeach, as well as alternative system embodiments and additional Systemramifications. The foregoing disclosures, along with those that followhave been drawn as to enable one ordinarily skilled in the pertinent artto make and use the invention.

Main Embodiments

-   1. OVERLAPPING MAXJIB 26-   2. NON-OVERLAPPING MAXJIB 28-   3. SELF-BOOMED MAXMAIN 30-   4. EXTERNAL SPAR MAXMAIN 32

System Rationale

High performance solutions for fully crewed race boats demand highlyskilled crew and important budgets. Only because they have alternatelytensioned twin backstays or no backstays at all, can multihull andracing monohull sailboats use big-roach, semi-elliptical mainsails.

Large mainsails, even where feasible, do not compensate for underpoweredtriangular jibs or genoas. Accordingly, both racing and cruisingsailboats still rely on a variety of free-flying sails and long-footedgenoas to supplement triangular standing headsails. The high cost ofsuch configurations and the danger to crew associated with such sails isincreasingly clear, as seen in spinnaker-related accidents occurringduring the recent America's Cup campaign.

To eliminate supplementary sail cost and on-deck sail handling entirely,System design rationale combined maximum sail area, maximum sailefficiency, in two permanently sails that can tack and jibe without crewintervention. Thus ensued a sail System that eliminated dangerouson-deck sail handling maneuvers, minimized crew effort and risk, andmade sailing as comfortable as possible for passengers and active crewalike.

Overlapping Maxjib 26: Rationale

A longstanding market demand called for economical, cockpit-controlledself-tacking headsails with area and efficiency appropriate to a windspeed range of five to thirty five knots. As a first objective, forOverlapping Maxjib, Applicant sought to create a reefable, hoistedheadsail that would cost less and carry less weight aloft thanarea-equivalent furling configurations that require separate port andstarboard sheets.

Beyond specific cost, power, and self-tacking operation, the sail wouldneed to provide cockpit-controlled deployment, reefing, and recovery. Acombination of the foregoing would yield a sail capable or regainingmarket share hoisted headsails had lost to counterpart furlingconfigurations. As the overlapping Maxjib design evolved, itscost-effectiveness was apparent, both as to triangular furlingconfigurations and, surprisingly, as compared to tall rigconfigurations. FIG. 3 shows a reefed overlapping Maxjib 26.

Not only does an overlapping maxjib have 30% more area than a triangularcounterpart, but, the most effective part of overlapping Maxjib 26'ssail area advantage is high up, at a level where a triangular sailpresents no sail area whatever to the wind. FIG. 6 a superimposes atriangular, area-equivalent genoa over a self-tacking overlapping Maxjib26. The triangular, area-equivalent genoa requires crew to alternatelytension port and starboard sheets and causes more heel than the Maxjib.

An overlapping rigid external spar is a contradiction in terms, whereasan overlapping self-tacking sail is not, so long as the latter sail'sclew does not contact a rig element. Eliminating a sail's rigid externalspar enables dynamic sail response to changing conditions. In addition,the foot of a flexible sail and its semi-rigid battens impose less riskof injury to crew than a rigid boom during tacking and jibing maneuvers.

Found on most modern boats, overlapping furling genoa configurations arecostly and heavy. They are difficult to tack and jibe, and they requirecrewmembers to alternately release and tension port and starboardsheets. An overlapping genoa and its separate sheets must crosscompanion mast and upper and forward shrouds in a loud, violent manner,after which the sheet to be tensioned must be quickly hauled in, placedon a winch, and wound in to the desired point. In some cases acrewmember must go forward and lead a genoa's clew across mast andrigging manually. A failed maneuver poses risk to boat and crew inconfined situations.

The violent, crew-intensive passage of a triangular overlapping genoaacross companion rig elements contrasts sharply with the orderly, quiet,and automatic passage of an overlapping Maxjib 26 across rig elements.The foot 101 and self-tacking sheet 64 of all Maxjib cross in front ofcompanion rig elements without contacting them.

The sail's momentum induces the upper part of the sail to roll acrossforward shroud 16 and mast 10 beginning at initial Maxjib rig contactpoint 80 and proceeding upward until the sail's head 98 crosses to theopposite side of the companion mast on the opposite tack or jibe. Thesail's battens should actually assist the sail in smoothly transitingacross mast and rigging, acting as “rails”.

In sharp contrast, the passage of a flogging conventional overlappinggenoa and its sheets across mast and rigging is anything but orderly,smooth, or effortless. The tacking sequence of long-footed genoas andself-tacking jibs was wryly described in a recent Practical Sailoreditorial:

“ . . . someone has just settled down with a paperback and a cup ofcoffee doesn't care after a few tacks whether you've sailed into aheader, a persistent shift, or the twilight zone: They're bloody wellnot going to secure book and brew again, clamber down to windward, flailthe new sheet around the winch, haul it in, stick it in the tailer,insert winch handle, and crank good and hard again until the sweat beadsup. No sir.

This is why I believe we see so many boats headed upwind in a finesailing breeze with the engine on and the mainsail flogging itself todeath. [With] a close-sheeting, self-tending working jib . . . you'llsail well . . . simply by shifting the helm, [and] you'll begin tosuspect that big genoas and their attendant winches aren't your truefriends after all.

If tacking is taking its toll in your cockpit, and the alternative isdivorce, or worse, golf, hie thee over to . . . self-tacking in thesite-search box . . . think how nice it would be to tack fast withoutthe asking.” (Practical Sailor, Vol. 30, Feb. 1, 2004, p. 2).

Maxjibs' advantages over underpowered, conventional, triangularself-tacking jibs include the Maxjibs' efficient semi-elliptical shapefor optimum performance even when reefed. Already compromised when fullydeployed, an overlapping furling genoa 114 cannot furl to usefulself-tacking size. Contrarily, a 100% triangular jib is virtuallyuseless in less than 15 to 20 knots of wind. In addition to itsperformance deficiencies, the separate port and starboard sheets of areefed furling genoa demand increasing levels of crew skill and strengthas conditions deteriorate. A failed maneuver inevitably causes diverseproblems ranging from loss of headway to winch-related crew injuries.

If a tack or jibe is abandoned, the boat loses even more headway, thegenoa can be damaged, or failure to clear an obstacle or danger canresult in damage to boat or crew. Tacking long-footed genoas is alwaysfatiguing and often dangerous. In direct opposition, Crew error is not afactor in tacking and jibing a self-tacking sail, and the maneuver willalways succeed if the boat has enough power to drive through the windand wave action. Assuring that power is what the increased surface andefficient shape of System sails are about, and the “turbo” effect ofoverlapping system sails lends further assurance by virtue of theirautomatically energy storage and release cycle as a boat approaches theaxis of the wind. The power is there when the boat most needs it.

Overlapping Maxjib 26 is self-boomed, making it stable while sailingdownwind. Similar stability for overlapping genoas or free flying sailsrequires that crewmembers set a lateral support pole from the mast, Suchmulti-line maneuvers are crew-intensive and hazardous to boat and crew.In practice, free flying sails and lateral support poles go largelyunused shorthanded boats. Unpoled genoas flog loudly and violently indownwind conditions, reducing sail life, comfort aboard and average boatspeed.

Sailing downwind with a self-boomed Maxjib avoids the foregoing problemsentirely by eliminating poles and external jib booms entirely, thusassuring higher average speeds and optimum safety and comfort for smallcrews. The shorthanded crew's natural tendency to avoid continuallateral pole sets, pole takedowns, and sail changes becomes irrelevantbecause just two easily managed self-tacking System sails provide theright sail area for any condition, upwind or downwind. Nor is adangerous swinging jib boom an issue.

In fact, overlapping Maxjib 26 is a new type of sail, a self-tackingsail that reefs easily and has the surface area of an overlapping genoa.Lower cost and more efficient form make the sail a highly effective andunexpected alternative to costly, inconvenient free-flying light airsails and costly tall-rig options.

Overlapping Maxjib 26: Installation

-   1. A fully hoisted overlapping Maxjib 26 appears in FIG. 1. A reefed    configuration appears in FIG. 3.-   2. With overlapping Maxjib 26 on deck, attach halyard 15 to its head    and deck-mounted strop 58 to its tack. Attach downhaul 52 to metal    grommet 75 located approximately twenty-centimeters below the sail's    head 98 and lead it through a deck-mounted pulley 21 and eventually    aft to the cockpit area.-   3. Tie or shackle self-tacking sheet 64 to a deck-mounted padeye 25    located on one side of the boat's deck then lead it through a first    pulley 21 shackled to clew ring 22 then through a second pulley 21    fixed to a deck-mounted padeye the opposite side of the boat's deck,    then aft to the cockpit, as seen in FIG. 5.-   4. Begin hoisting the sail slowly, bringing successive sail    installation components to a convenient working level. As each    batten, batten box, sail hank, or other installation component    attains a convenient working level, proceed as follows.-   5. From the sail's head 98 downwards, insert successively the three    uppermost battens through corresponding flat-end luff batten boxes    44 until each batten butts against the end of a corresponding    diagonal closed batten pocket 34.-   6. As each appears, clip sail hanks 46 onto inner forestay 14 or    forestay 12, as the case may be.-   7. Insert each of the two lowermost diagonal round battens 38    through a corresponding fork-end luff batten box 45, then into a    corresponding diagonal closed batten pocket 34, or leech batten box    41 in the case of the lowermost diagonal round batten. Finally,    secure the fork ends or each fork-end luff batten box 45 around the    forestay with batten box fixing pin 47.-   8. Measure the distance between the sail's luff at inner forestay 14    at the level of the sail's two lowest battens. That distance should    be approximately twenty millimeters. If it is not, remove batten box    fixing pin 47 from batten box fork ends as required, adjust the    threaded stud accordingly, and replace the fixing pin, as shown in    FIGS. 5 and 5 a.-   9. Once the sail has been fully hoisted and attached to its    forestay, lower the sail, performing each of the following    installation procedures as each element reaches a convenient working    level.-   10. Conforming to FIG. 5, tie one end of reef line 54 to clew ring    22, then lead that line upwards to a first pulley 21 attached to the    sail at leech reef point 62; then lead the line through a second    pulley 21 attached to the sail at luff reef point 60, as seen in    FIG. 3; then downwards through a third, deck-mounted pulley 21; then    aft to the boat's cockpit.-   11. Install and adjust Dutchman System 73. As seen in FIG. 2.    Dutchman tabs 70 have been sewn to the sail in accordance with the    Dutchman installation manual supplied with each System. After    attaching each Dutchman vertical control line 72 to its respective    tab, lace each control line upwards through corresponding Dutchman    eyelets 69, exit at the uppermost eyelet, and connect each line to    topping lift 55 using the parts provided with Dutchman deployment    control System 73. When fully installed, the Dutchman control lines    will lie parallel to the sail's luff. Skilled sailmakers are    familiar with deck layouts for self-tacking sheets as well as    Dutchman installation and adjustment.

Overlapping Maxjib 26: Operation

-   1. Sail Deployment or “hoisting” requires only attaching halyard 15    to the head 98 of overlapping Maxjib 26 and pulling on the halyard.    As the sail goes up, it automatically unfolds without flogging by    virtue of its Dutchman deployment control System 73.-   2. Self-tacking sheet 64 controls the angle of the sail to the wind.-   3. To reduce the sail's area, or “reef” it, release halyard 15 and    take in reef line 54, thus allowing the sail to descend to the    desired reef level. Downhaul 52 is available to assist in lowering    the sail where, for example, the wind direction is aft of a boat's    beam.-   4. As an initial reef level is set, the sail's first round batten 38    assumes a horizontal position and is held tightly against the foot    of the sail by reef line 54. Topping lift 55, along with the    Dutchman control lines, maintains equal upward tension along the    sail's foot 101. This constitutes a new, unforeseen use for a    Dutchman system.-   5. The two lowermost battens of overlapping Maxjib 26 are of the    same type and length, and they tack and jibe clear of companion rig    elements whether the sail if fully deployed, reefed, or fully    lowered.-   6. Boats that frequently encounter heavy weather conditions might    have more than one reef level. Procedure for setting a second reef    is identical to that for the first reef. The lowermost and second    round battens have identical length, hence both clear companion rig    elements in a reefed configuration. Applicant used two reefs on a    first prototype Maxjib but eventually found one reef sufficient. One    skilled in the art will be familiar with placing reef levels that    correspond to the conditions a boat most frequently encounters.-   7. Tacking and jibing a sail controlled by a single self-tacking    sheet 64 eliminates the need for crewmembers to alternate of port    and starboard sheets. The helmsman simply turns the boat through the    axis of the wind and continues on the new course.-   8. Unexpectedly, a boat sailing downwind with a self-tacking Maxjib    and a mainsail on opposite sides of the boat, or “wing and wing”,    can maintain a course 20-degrees beyond the point at which a    conventional headsail would jibe. As a result, a boat's mainsail can    be trimmed to a more stable, safer angle relative to the wind, that    is, approximately 20-degrees inside of the point at which it would    normally jibe. This leaves a margin of approximately 20-degrees for    steering errors, which would not be available with conventional    counterpart sails in comparable downwind circumstances.-   9. Accidentally jibing a boomed mainsail imposes serious risk to    boat or crew. Accidentally jibing with a headsail having port and    starboard sheets puts the sail aback causing the boat to be    uncontrollable until the sheets are alternated.-   10. Accidentally jibing a Maxjib or Maxmain does not have such    consequences. The sails' large roach area acts as an air brake as    the sail jibes. Accordingly, reduced anxiety allows a helmsman's    attention to focus on maintaining a stable course downwind as    opposed to constantly correcting course to thread the fine line    between safe, comfortable downwind sailing and an accidental jibe.    The increased downwind safety margin makes for a more stable    platform, thus minimizing both the fatigue that inevitably exposes    crew and boat to increased risks and physical demands on helmsman    and autopilot.-   11. To lower overlapping Maxjib 26, release halyard 15 and, if    necessary, pull on downhaul 52. The sail descends without flogging    or on-deck sail handling. The “Dutchman” combines with the sail's    specific batten disposition to eliminate flogging and assure    automatic folding or “flaking” as the sail descends. As diagonal    battens descends along a companion diagonal forestay, each one    assumes a horizontal position as it approaches the foot area of the    sail, automatically folding or “flaking” the sail without crew    intervention.

Non-overlapping Maxjib 28: Rationale

Rationale for non-overlapping Maxjib 28 follows closely that foroverlapping Maxjib 26. The smaller, non-overlapping Maxjib meets theneeds of boats with twin headstay configurations or those of boatsintended for use in consistently high wind speeds. Like all Systemsails, non-overlapping Maxjib 26 assures optimum sail efficiency,maximum area and reduced heeling.

Non-overlapping Maxjib 28: Installation and Operation

Installation and operation of non-overlapping Maxjib 28 mirror those ofoverlapping Maxjib 26.

Self-boomed Maxmain 30: Rationale

-   1. Self-boomed Maxmain 30 brings comprehensive advantages to hoisted    mainsails and assures optimum interface between a boat's standing    sails. Maxmain performance, convenience, and cost objectives    resemble those for Maxjibs and will not be repeated.-   2. If a rigid external spar hits the water in conditions of extreme    heel or hits a boat's rigging during an accidental jibe, the spar    can break or dismast the boat. Similar rig contact by a sail having    only semi-rigid battens instead of a rigid spar would not produce    such catastrophic results. At worst, a batten could break, a    relatively insignificant event as opposed to what is usually a    dangerous accident. Most importantly, contact between a semi-rigid    batten and a boat's rigging or the water would not cause a    dismasting.-   3. As concerns tacking and jibing: during thousands of tacks and    jibes the test boat's prototype Maxmains crossed permanent backstay    18 without a single instance of batten breakage or unusual sail    wear. At no time was batten-backstay contact remotely hazardous to    boat or crew.-   4. Mainstream market demand has long called for economical, easily    handled sail configurations that do not compromise sailing    performance. The foregoing discussion of other System embodiments    reveals how the System meets that demand with a wing-like,    self-boomed hoisted sail costing less than a counterpart-hoisted    mainsail set from an external spar.

Self-boomed Maxmain 30: Installation and Operation

In most respects, installation and use of self-boomed Maxmain 30 followsprocedures set forth above for the installation and use of Maxjibs 26and 28.

-   1. However, luff connection hardware differs somewhat. Self-boomed    Maxmain installation involves inserting sail slides 48 through mast    track gate 120 into mast track 11 then finally closing mast track    gate 120 once the sail has been fully hoisted with all sail slides    inserted into the track.-   2. Aside from the above variance, Maxmain and Maxjib installation    mirror each other as concerns installing halyard 15, the sail's    battens, Dutchman deployment control System 73, a self-tacking sheet    64, and Dutchman or Lazy Jack deployment control lines.-   3. Reefing self-boomed Maxmain 30 begins with releasing halyard 15,    then taking in reef line 54 until the aft end of the sail's second    batten has butted against the aft end of the sail's bottom diagonal    batten, at which point its sail slide will be supported by mast    track insert 118. If needed, downhaul 52 can be used to assist in    lowering the sail. FIG. 4 a shows details of a Maxmain in reefed    configuration.-   4. Secure reef line 54, fixing the triangulation between the sail's    first horizontal batten, its bottom diagonal batten and the    companion mast. Re-tension halyard 15 and secure downhaul 52.-   5. If additional reef levels are present, each is set as above. Once    set, each reef level sequentially reinforces the reefing triangle.-   6. As it is lowered, self-boomed Maxmain 30 neatly flakes itself.    Outhaul 52 is available to assist lowering as desired, for example,    with the wind aft of the boat's beam.-   7. Once the sail is fully lowered, it can be more compactly stowed    by releasing the snap shackle 116 attached to the lower end of strop    58 from its corresponding deck-mounted padeye 25, then detaching the    batten box fixing pin 47 from corresponding sail slide 48. Thus    freed from mast track 11, the luff end of the sail's lowest batten    can be raised to a horizontal level and fixed there using strop 58,    thus enabling use of a conventional stowage bag. This configuration    is seen in FIG. 10. Alternatively, the lower triangle of the sail    can be used as a sunshade or water catchment ramp, as shown in FIG.    10 a.

External Spar Maxmain 32: Rationale, Installation and Use

Like other System embodiments, External spar Maxmain 32 requireduniversally applicably maximum roach parameters. Those parameters allowa large roach, overlapping mainsail attached to a rigid spar to be usedon any conventionally rigged sailboat. The installation and use ofexternal spar Maxmain 32 replicate those of self-boomed System sailembodiments except that the foot of an external spar Maxmain ishorizontal, not diagonal. The sail's horizontal foot connects to arigid, horizontal boom, and its foot tension is adjusted by an outhaulin the customary manner, a configuration well-known to one skilled inthe art. A fully deployed external spar Maxmain 32 is seen in FIG. 1.

The rationale underlying external Maxmain 32 differs somewhat from thatof self-boomed Maxmain 30. Nearly all existing sailboats set theirmainsail from an external rigid boom, and many prospective boat ownerswill question the wisdom of abandoning the proven rigid boom concept fora self-boomed mainsail. These facts establish an inescapablemainsail-marketing issue that is resolved by providing an option thatcombines sailors' existing hardware habits with Optimized mainsailgeometry. That rationale parallels that for marketing a self-boomed buttriangular sail in order to target specific markets.

Logically, any sailmaker seeks to obtain maximum sales to a broad-basedmarket segment. The mainsail market is presently composed of boats withrigid external booms. Boat owners are going to be unwilling to throwaway those booms and, indeed, their existing mainsails. For thatoverwhelming majority of owners, the possibility of using an OptimizedSystem Maxmain with their existing boom will be an extremely attractiveidea. For many of those owners, retrofitting an Optimized Maxmain leecharea to their existing mainsail will be an attractive initiation toOptimized sail performance and efficiency at low initial cost.

Applicant foresees that the sale of externally boomed Maxmains willconstitute an important transitional phase in bringing the System andits unique advantages to the attention of the mainstream sailboatmarket. As this familiarization process evolves, Applicant foresees bothboat builders and prospective boat buyers increasingly opting forself-boomed Maxmains since they are beginning without any boom whatever.Since most boats have no jib boom, Applicant believes that marketpenetration of self-boomed Maxjibs will be more immediate thanself-boomed Maxmains, and that proliferation of self-boomed conventionalheadsails will provide even added emphasis to the advantages of selfboomed Maxjibs and Maxmains.

Conclusions, Ramifications and Scope

Accordingly, the reader will see that the System enables aheretofore-inconceivable reconciliation of optimum performance andoptimum convenience for any sailboat. The System delivers its benefitsin what has been heretofore an impossible context: conventional sailboatrig geometry.

That rig geometry has perpetuated the worst possible form for a sail,the triangular form, and designers have simply “made do” with thatgeometry for the last hundred years. Not only has the System madesemi-elliptical, overlapping sails feasible for any conventionallyrigged sailboat, but it has converted that geometry to a considerableasset. Historically, rig elements have impeded tacking and jibing andprecluded overlapping semi-elliptical sails entirely.

The system uses those apparently obstructive rig elements to trigger anenergy storage cycle that automatically, and unexpectedly “turbocharges”a boat's forward movement at the end of each tack or jibe. It is atprecisely that moment that a tack or jibe is most likely to fail forwant of boat momentum or, in the case of conventional genoas, because ofcrew error. With System sails, maximum momentum is assured, and crewerror is eliminated entirely.

Beyond enabling the foregoing unexpected benefits for any conventionalsailboat, the system assures self-booming and self-vanging for itssails, thereby allowing boat owners to eliminate heavy, costly externalspars for both headsails and mainsails. The consequent reduction inweight on deck and aloft combines with elliptical sail form to furtherreduce heel. The importance of reduced heel cannot be overemphasized,both in terms of forward motive power and crew comfort and safety.Triangular sails exacerbate heel. System sails minimize heel.

The heel-reducing synergism between reduced weight on deck andsemi-elliptical sail form is at once formidable and unprecedented. TheSystem's unique downwind sailing stability assures optimum boatstability and a 20% steering safety margin for the helmsman,constituting yet another synergism created by System sails. Similarly,maximum safety and for boat users combine with reduced cost for both thebuyer and the builder. These results establish unprecedented economicpossibilities and new markets for boat builders and sailmakers.

The system introduces entirely new types of sails, self-boomed sailsincluding overlapping Maxjibs, which resemble the wing of a butterfly.Sailing technology that mirrors nature is not only functionally sound,but it also carries considerable market appeal. In the case of anoverlapping Maxjib, a single sail combines safe, low effort self-tackingand optimal sail power in wind speeds as low as five knots up to maximumconditions. The Maxjib, like all System sails, enjoys 100% cockpitcontrol cockpit thereby eliminating dangerous on-deck sail handling.

The market possibilities of the System are extensive in the presentmarket climate, which favors convenience and safety priorities.Notwithstanding, The System's comprehensive properties enable aneffective response to any shift in market sentiment towards performancepriorities. Heretofore, conventional sail form imposed an electionbetween performance priorities as opposed to convenience and safetypriorities. The System renders that dilemma obsolete.

The System unites known and new elements to achieve unexpected newresults that include:

-   -   1. Unprecedented hoisted sails that eliminate dangerous on-deck        sail handling, converting risk to security.    -   2. Universal Optimized roach parameters for each System sail        embodiment, enabling Optimized semi-elliptical self-tacking        mainsails and headsails for any sailboat.    -   3. A cost-effective alternative to taller masts, yielding major        cost savings for boat buyers and boat builders alike.    -   4. 30% more sail area with no increase in rig height: a new        economics for boat building.    -   5. 15% less heel, thereby reducing crew fatigue and increasing        safety.    -   6. Faster, relaxed upwind and downwind sailing. Reduced heel and        less fatigue improve crew performance.    -   7. Self-boomed, hoisted self-tacking sails with sufficient area        for light conditions and cockpit-controlled single-line reefing        for heavier conditions. For maximum safety and convenience, all        sail maneuvers are 100% cockpit-controlled.    -   8. Ideal interface between headsail and mainsail triggers        synergism. Where conventional systems create negative        turbulence, System headsails and mainsails interface with        maximum harmony.    -   9. System design makes optimum use of currently available        materials and methods while accommodating evolving technology.    -   10. New products for long-standing unsatisfied market demands.    -   11. Hoisted overlapping Maxjibs and Maxmains eliminate costly        inconvenient free flying sails and lateral support poles.    -   12. System sails impose no modification to boat or rig but        rather convert below-deck sail stowage space to comfortable        living space. Space aboard a sailboat is precious. The system        optimizes not only the sailing experience, but also life aboard.

System Sails: Additional Ramifications

-   -   1. Reduced heel is an important factor when conditions or boat        use require “motor sailing”. In such cases, a self-boomed,        hoisted System headsail can be used fully deployed or reefed,        reducing wear on a boat's larger, more costly mainsail, which        may have an external spar. Taking such an external spar out of        action while motor sailing is highly desirable from every point        of view.    -   2. In addition, workboats such as fishing trawlers can benefit        from the reduced heel of System sails to gain a more stable        working platform. Minimum heel and a low center of effort        naturally complement non-ballasted workboat hulls such as        trawlers.    -   3. Optimized roach parameters can apply equally to furling        mainsails and headsails.    -   4. The System is appropriate to other types of wind-powered        vehicles such as beach-sailing craft and iceboats.    -   5. The System sail concept can extend to produce furling        mainsail and headsail configurations as well as unique,        aerodynamic and automatic on-deck headsail and mainsail stowage

Non-restrictive Scope of the Invention

Although the above description includes specific examples, these shouldnot be construed as limiting the scope of the invention, but as merelyproviding illustrations of some of the presently preferred embodimentsof it. Consequently, the scope of the invention should be determined bythe appended claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by theexamples given.

For example:

-   1. The System can be used on any wind-powered vehicle including    iceboats or other land vehicles-   2. The end-plate effect of the System headboard combination may    incorporate other functions such as electrical connections and solar    arrays.-   3. The System can assure cost-effective supplementary wind power for    commercial users such as fishing trawlers or “Club Med-type”    passenger vessels by fully exploiting available vertical sail space.-   4. Similarly, the System's optimization of shorter masts allows boat    building economies in ballast and rigging wire. Conventional sails    cannot approach such performance and economic benefits.-   5. The sunshade-water catchment feature of system sails can be    combined with solar panels or solar cells to provide alternate    energy capabilities, which have both economic and ecological    ramifications.-   6. In summary, the System enables maximum sail power and efficiency    for any sailing vessel despite the confines of conventional sailboat    rig geometry.

Request for Constructive Assistance

If, for any reason, this Application is not now believed to be in fullcondition for allowance, Applicant respectfully request the constructiveassistance and suggestions of the Examiner pursuant to M.P.E.P. Sec.2173.02 and Sec. 707.070), first, as to place all or part of theApplication in allowable form without further proceedings.

Sequence Listing

Not Applicable

1. A sail system comprising a vessel, a mast, a sheet, a sail having aluff edge, a foot edge, a leech edge, a head, a tack, a clew, and meansfor attaching the head, tack and clew of said sail to a vessel, saidsail comprising: A. a maximum foot length no greater than 100% “j”; B. aplurality of sail hanks; C. a diagonal batten oriented at an angle ofapproximately ninety degrees to the luff of said sail, said battenhaving a first end contained by a first batten receptacle havingforestay connect ability and being attached at or near the luff of saidsail and a second end contained by a second batten receptacle attachedto said sail at or near the clew of said sail, each such battenreceptacle being attached to said sail in the axis of said diagonalbatten; D. a batten pocket attached to said sail in the axis of saiddiagonal batten; E. an approximately elliptical positive leech curvedescending from the head of said sail through successive leech limitpoints to the clew of said sail, each such leech limit point deriving asfollows: i. said sail's head-to-clew diagonal being a line from the headto the clew of said sail; ii. said sail's vertical extremitiesconstruction line being a vertical line disposed at or forward of saidsail's tack and running upwards from the level of said sail's clew tothe level of its head; iii. said vertical extremities construction linecomprising segments of equal height delimited by horizontal constructionlines; iv. each such horizontal construction line running horizontallyaft from said vertical extremities construction line to the companionmast of said sail; v. said sail's leech measurement intersections lyingat respective intersections between each of said sail's horizontalconstruction lines and its head-to-clew diagonal; vi. said sail'srespective forward girth segments each being equal to the horizontaldistance from successive leech measurement intersections to the luff ofsaid sail; vii. from uppermost to lowermost, each of said sail's aftgirth segments being approximately equal in length to the followingpercentage of the length of respective corresponding forward girthsegments: 80%, 30%; 20%, 6%, and 2%, said percentages corresponding to apreferred six-segment vertical construction line; viii. each of saidsail's leech limit points lying along a corresponding horizontalconstruction line at a distance aft of the luff of said sail equal tothe combined length of corresponding forward and aft girth segments ofsaid sail; F. said sail's leech perimeter beginning at its head anddescending sequentially through successive leech limit points toterminate at said sail's clew; whereby a low cost, hoisted,non-overlapping, self-tacking, self-boomed headsail employspredetermined leech parameters to reconcile optimum performance andoptimum convenience.
 2. The sail system of claim 1, with the followingdistinguishing or additional features: a headboard-end plate combinationconstructed of rigid or semi-rigid metallic or composite material havingeither a conventional or light and radar reflective surface, suchmaterial comprising companion port and starboard headboard plates eachhaving one or more pairs of integral or mechanically attached endplates, each such end plate being disposed at an angle of approximatelyninety-degrees relative to its companion headboard plate, the upperextremity of each such port or starboard headboard plate being attachedto a corresponding side of said sail at a point approximately level withthe upper extremity of said sail; whereby a new, unexpected combinationproduces a synergism that enhances non-overlapping headsail performanceand safety while optimizing inter-sail interface.
 3. The sail System ofclaim 1 with the following distinguishing or additional properties: A.The sail's foot being approximately horizontal and being connected to anexternal spar; whereby System benefits extend to non-overlappingself-tacking jibs attached to external jib spars.
 4. The sail system ofclaim 1 with the following distinguishing or additional properties: A.one or a plurality of external batten reduction combinations, each suchexternal batten reduction combination comprising a high-density battensleeve and a companion semi-rigid batten; B. each such high-densitybatten sleeve comprising a combination of diagonal or vertical fibersand horizontal fibers, such fibers having a reference density ratio ofapproximately two diagonal or vertical fibers to one horizontal fiber;C. each such high-density batten sleeve having one or more variabledensity zones proximate to rig contact and sail folding points in whichzones diagonal or vertical fiber density is reduced by fifteen-percentand horizontal fiber density is reduced by thirty-percent; D. each suchsemi-rigid batten having one or more variable density batten zoneproximate to corresponding rig contact points in which zones battenrigidity is reduced by fifteen-percent; E. each such external battenreduction combination having a collective rigidity level approximatelyequal to that of the collective rigidity level of the respective battenand batten pocket it replaces; whereby lighter external batten reductionconfigurations enable foldable self-boomed, self-tacking non-overlappinghoisted headsails that reconcile optimum performance and convenience. 5.The sail system of claim 1 with the following distinguishing oradditional properties: A. one or a plurality of integral battensubstitute zones, each such integral batten substitute zone beingdisposed in the axis of a replaced batten, and having a widthapproximately equal to a replaced batten pocket; each such integralbatten substitute zone comprising a combination of diagonal or verticalfibers and horizontal fibers mechanically or chemically integrated withthe body of the sail in the axis of a replaced batten and batten pocket;B. said fibers having a reference density ratio of approximately twodiagonal or vertical fibers to one horizontal fiber; C. each suchintegral batten substitute having one or more variable density zonesproximate to rig contact points and sail folding points in which zonesdiagonal or vertical fiber density is reduced by fifteen-percent andhorizontal fiber density is reduced by thirty-percent; D. each suchintegral batten substitute having a collective rigidity levelapproximately equal to that of the batten and batten pocket it replaces;whereby a new use of fiber-orienting-sail-making-technology unexpectedlyyields batten-free self-tacking, self-boomed, non-overlappingsemi-elliptical hoisted headsails with self-supported positive roach. 6.The sail system of claim 1, with the following distinguishing oradditional properties: A. two or more diagonal battens; B. a toppinglift; C. a downhaul; D. a single-line reefing system comprising cordage,pulleys and fairleads; E. a deployment control configuration such as aDutchman or Lazy Jack configuration; whereby a new combination producesa non-overlapping, self-tacking, self-boomed hoisted headsailunexpectedly combining maximum-area-semi-elliptical shape withcomprehensive cockpit sail control.
 7. A sail system comprising avessel, a mast, a sheet, a sail having a luff edge, a foot edge, a leechedge, a head, a tack, a clew, and means for attaching the head, tack andclew of said sail to a vessel, such sail comprising: A. a maximum footlength no greater than 100% “j”; B. a plurality of sail hanks; C. adiagonal batten oriented at an angle of approximately ninety degrees tothe luff of said sail, said batten having a first end contained by afirst batten receptacle having forestay connect ability and beingattached at or near the luff of said sail and a second end contained bya second batten receptacle attached to said sail at or near the clew ofsaid sail, each such batten receptacle being attached to said sail inthe axis of said diagonal batten; D. a batten pocket attached to saidsail in the axis of said diagonal batten, and; E. an approximatelyelliptical positive leech curve descending from said sail's head throughsuccessive leech limit points to the clew of said sail, each such leechlimit point deriving as follows: i. said sail's initial Maxjib rigcontact point being a lowermost point of contact between the leech ofsaid sail and a most proximate companion rig element; ii. said sail'soverlapping Maxjib rig contact diagonal being a line descendingdiagonally from said sail's head to its initial Maxjib contact point;iii. said sail's vertical extremities construction line being a verticalline disposed at or forward of the sail's tack and running upwards fromthe level of said sail's initial Maxjib rig contact point to the head ofsaid sail; iv. said vertical construction line comprising segments ofequal height delimited by horizontal construction lines; v. each suchhorizontal construction line running horizontally aft from said verticalextremities construction line through the companion mast of said sail;vi. said sail's leech measurement intersections lying at respectiveintersections between each of said sail's horizontal construction linesand its overlapping Maxjib rig contact diagonal; vii. said sail'srespective forward girth segments each being equal to the horizontaldistance from successive leech measurement intersections to the luff ofsaid sail; viii. from uppermost to lowermost, the length of each of saidsail's aft girth segments being approximately equal to the followingpercentage of the length of corresponding forward girth segments: 90%,b. 72%; c. 43%, d. 24%, e. 6% said percentages corresponding to apreferred six-segment vertical construction line; ix. each of saidsail's leech limit points lying along a horizontal construction line ata distance aft of the sail's luff equal to the combined length ofcorresponding forward and aft girth segments of said sail; F. saidsail's leech perimeter beginning at said sail's head and descendingsequentially through successive leech limit points to terminate at theclew of said sail; whereby a low cost, hoisted, overlapping self-tackingheadsail combines semi-elliptical shape and integral booming and vangingto assure optimum performance and convenience in all conditions.
 8. Thesail system of claim 7, with the following distinguishing or additionalfeatures: a headboard-end plate combination constructed of rigid orsemi-rigid metallic or composite material having either a conventionalor light and radar reflective surface, such material comprisingcompanion port and starboard headboard plates each having one or morepairs of integral or mechanically attached end plates, each such endplate being disposed at an angle of approximately ninety-degreesrelative to its companion headboard plate, the upper extremity of eachsuch port or starboard headboard plate being attached to a correspondingside of said sail at a point approximately level with the upperextremity of said sail; whereby a new, unexpected combination produces asynergism that enhances overlapping headsail performance and safetywhile optimizing inter-sail interface.
 9. The sail system of claim 7with the following distinguishing or additional properties: A. one or aplurality of external batten reduction combinations, each such externalbatten reduction combination comprising a high-density batten sleeve anda companion semi-rigid batten; B. each such high-density batten sleevebeing constructed of sail cloth composed of diagonal or vertical fibersand horizontal fibers, such fibers having a reference density ratio ofapproximately two vertical or diagonal fibers to one horizontal fiber;C. each such high-density batten sleeve having one or more variabledensity zones proximate to rig contact and sail folding points in whichzones vertical or diagonal fiber density is reduced by fifteen-percent,and horizontal fiber density is reduced by thirty-percent; D. each suchsemi-rigid batten having one or more variable density batten zonesproximate to rig contact points in which zones batten rigidity isreduced by fifteen-percent; E. each such external batten reductioncombination having a collective rigidity level approximately equal tothat of the collective rigidity level of the respective batten andbatten pocket it replaces; whereby new external batten reductionconfigurations unexpectedly enable lighter overlapping, self-tacking,self-boomed hoisted headsails that optimize tacking and jibing.
 10. Thesail system of claim 7 with the following distinguishing or additionalproperties: A. one or a plurality of integral batten substitute zones,each such integral batten substitute zone being disposed in the axis ofa replaced batten and having width approximately equal to a replacedbatten pocket; each such integral batten substitute zone comprising acombination of diagonal or vertical fibers and horizontal fibersmechanically or chemically integrated with the body of the sail in theaxis of a replaced batten and batten pocket; B. said combination offibers having a density ratio of approximately two diagonal or verticalfibers to one horizontal fiber; C. each such integral batten substitutehaving one or more variable density zones proximate to rig contactpoints and sail folding points in which zones diagonal or vertical fiberdensity is reduced by fifteen-percent, and horizontal fiber density isreduced by thirty-percent; D. each such integral batten substitutehaving a collective rigidity level approximately equal to that of thebatten and batten pocket it replaces; whereby a new use of existingfiber-orienting sail making technology yields batten-free,self-supporting overlapping, semi-elliptical hoisted headsails optimizedfor tacking and jibing.
 11. The sail system of claim 7 with thefollowing distinguishing or additional features: A. two or more diagonalbattens; B. a topping lift; C. a downhaul; D. a single-line reefingsystem comprising cordage, pulleys and fairleads; E. a deploymentcontrol configuration such as a Dutchman or Lazy Jack configuration;whereby a new use of sail making materials unexpectedly results in anoverlapping, self-tacking, self-boomed hoisted headsail combiningmaximum-area-semi-elliptical shape with comprehensive cockpit sailcontrol.
 12. A sail system comprising a vessel, mast, a sheet, a sailhaving a luff edge, a foot edge, a leech edge, a head, a tack, a clew,and means for attaching the head, tack and clew of said sail to avessel, each such sail comprising: A. a diagonal foot having a first endintersecting the luff of said sail at an angle of approximatelyeighty-five degrees and a second end intersecting the leech of said sailat an angle of approximately ninety degrees, the clew point of said sailbeing forward of a vessel's permanent backstay; B. a diagonally-orientedsemi-rigid batten approximately equal in length to the foot of said sailattached to said sail in the axis of said foot; said diagonal battenhaving a first end contained by a first batten receptacle having mastconnect ability and being attached to said sail at or near the luff ofsaid sail and a second end contained by a second batten receptacleattached to said sail at or near the clew of said sail, each such battenreceptacle being attached to said sail in the axis of said diagonalbatten; C. a diagonal batten pocket attached to said sail in the axis ofsaid diagonal batten; D. a horizontal semi-rigid batten running from apoint at or near the clew of said sail to the luff of said sail; saidhorizontal batten having a first end contained by a first battenreceptacle having mast connect ability and being attached to said sailat or near the luff of said sail, and a second end contained by a secondbatten receptacle attached to said sail at or near the clew of saidsail, each such batten receptacle being attached to said sail in theaxis of said horizontal batten; E. a horizontal batten pocket attachedto said sail in the axis of said horizontal batten; F. an approximatelyelliptical leech curve descending from said sail's head throughsuccessive leech limit points to its clew, each such leech limit pointderiving as follows: i. said sail's initial Maxmain rig contact pointbeing a lowermost point of contact between the leech of said sail and amost proximate companion rig element; ii. said sail's backstay contactdiagonal being a descending diagonal line from the head of said sail toits initial Maxmain rig contact point; iii. said sail's verticalextremities construction line being a vertical line disposed at orforward of the tack of said sail and running upwards from the level ofinitial Maxmain contact point to the level of the head of said sail; iv.said vertical extremities construction line comprising segments of equalheight delimited by horizontal construction lines; v. each suchhorizontal construction line running horizontally aft from said verticalextremities construction line and terminating at a point approximatelyten centimeters aft of the clew of said sail; vi. said sail's respectiveleech measurement intersections lying successively at the intersectionbetween each of said sail's horizontal construction lines and saidsail's backstay contact diagonal; vii. said sail's respective forwardgirth segments each being equal to the horizontal distance fromsuccessive leech measurement intersections to the luff of said sail;viii. from uppermost to lowermost, the length of each of said sail's aftgirth segments being approximately equal to the following percentage ofthe length of corresponding forward girth segments: 90%, b. 72%; c. 43%,d. 24%, e. 6% said percentages corresponding to a preferred six-segmentvertical construction line; ix. each of said sail's leech limit pointslying along a corresponding horizontal construction line at a distanceaft of said sail's luff equal to the combined length of thecorresponding forward and aft girth segments of said sail; G. saidsail's leech perimeter beginning at its head and descending sequentiallythrough successive leech limit points to terminate at the clew of saidsail; whereby a self-boomed, hoisted, semi-elliptical, mainsaileliminates external spars while assuring greater safety, convenience,and performance than boomed or furling mainsail configurations.
 13. Thesail system of claim 12, with the following distinguishing or additionalfeatures: a headboard-end plate combination constructed of rigid orsemi-rigid metallic or composite material having either a conventionalor light and radar reflective surface, such material comprisingcompanion port and starboard headboard plates each having one or morepairs of integral or mechanically attached end plates, each such endplate being disposed at an angle of approximately ninety-degreesrelative to its companion headboard plate, the upper extremity of eachsuch port or starboard headboard plate being attached to a correspondingside of said sail at a point approximately level with the upperextremity of said sail; whereby a new, unexpected mainsail produces asynergism that enhances mainsail performance and safety while optimizinginter-sail interface.
 14. The sail System of claim 12 with the followingdistinguishing or additional properties: A. the sail's foot beingapproximately horizontal and being connected to an external spar;whereby System benefits extend to boomed mainsails.
 15. The sail systemof claim 12 with the following distinguishing or additional properties:A. one or a plurality of external batten reduction combinations, eachsuch external batten reduction combination comprising a high-densitybatten sleeve and a companion semi-rigid batten; B. each suchhigh-density batten sleeve comprising a combination of diagonal orvertical fibers and horizontal fibers, such fibers having a referencedensity ratio of approximately two diagonal or vertical fibers to onehorizontal fiber; C. each such high-density batten sleeve having one ormore variable density zones proximate to rig contact and sail foldingpoints in which zones diagonal or vertical fiber density is reduced byfifteen-percent and horizontal fiber density is reduced bythirty-percent; D. each such semi-rigid batten having one or morevariable density batten zones proximate to rig contact points in whichzones batten rigidity is reduced by fifteen-percent; E. each suchexternal batten reduction combination having a collective rigidity levelapproximately equal to that of the collective rigidity level of therespective batten and batten pocket it replaces; whereby a new use ofknown batten and sail cloth materials unexpectedly results in lighter,less voluminous batten-free, overlapping semi-elliptical hoistedmainsails with self-supported positive roach.
 16. The sail system ofclaim 12 with the follow distinguishing or additional properties: A. oneor a plurality of integral batten substitute zones, each such integralbatten substitute zone being disposed in the axis of a replaced battenand having width approximately equal to a replaced batten pocket; eachsuch integral batten substitute zone comprising a combination ofdiagonal or vertical fibers and horizontal fibers mechanically orchemically integrated with the body of the sail in the axis of areplaced batten and batten pocket; B. said combination of fibers havinga reference density ratio of approximately two diagonal or verticalfibers to one horizontal fiber; C. each such integral batten substitutehaving one or more variable density zones proximate to rig contactpoints and sail folding points in which zones vertical or diagonal fiberdensity is reduced by fifteen-percent; and horizontal fiber density isreduced by thirty-percent; D. each such batten substitute having acollective rigidity level approximately equal to that of the batten andbatten pocket elements it replaces; whereby a new use offiber-orientating-sail-making-technology unexpectedly yieldsbatten-free, overlapping semi-elliptical hoisted mainsails withself-supported positive roach.
 17. The sail system of claim 12, with thefollowing distinguishing or additional properties: A. two or morehorizontal battens; B. a topping lift; C. a downhaul; D. a single-linereefing system comprising cordage, pulleys and fairleads; E. adeployment control configuration such as a Dutchman or Lazy Jackconfiguration; whereby new uses of sail making materials and new designsunexpectedly yield an overlapping, self-boomed, hoisted mainsail havingmaximum-area-semi-elliptical shape and comprehensive cockpit sailcontrol.
 18. The sail system of claim 12 with the follow distinguishingor additional properties: A. the sail's foot being approximatelyhorizontal and being connected to an external spar; B. one or aplurality of external batten reduction combinations, each such externalbatten reduction combination comprising a high-density batten sleeve anda companion semi-rigid batten; each such high-density batten sleevecomprising a combination of diagonal or vertical fibers and horizontalfibers, such fibers having a reference density ratio of approximatelytwo diagonal or vertical fibers to one horizontal fiber; C. each suchhigh-density batten sleeve having one or more variable density zonesproximate to rig contact and sail folding points in which zones diagonalor vertical fiber density is reduced by fifteen-percent and horizontalfiber density is reduced by thirty-percent; D. each such semi-rigidbatten having one or more variable density batten zones proximate to rigcontact points in which zones batten rigidity is reduced byfifteen-percent; E. each such external batten reduction combinationhaving a collective rigidity level approximately equal to that of thecollective rigidity level of the respective batten and batten pocket itreplaces; whereby a new use of batten and sail cloth materialsunexpectedly results in lighter, less voluminous mainsails for use withconventional or furling booms.
 19. The sail system of claim 12 with thefollow distinguishing or additional properties: A. the sail's foot beingapproximately horizontal and being connected to an external spar; B. oneor a plurality of integral batten substitute zones, each such integralbatten substitute zone being disposed in the axis of a replaced battenand having width approximately equal to a replaced batten pocket; eachsuch integral batten substitute zone comprising a combination ofdiagonal or vertical fibers and horizontal fibers mechanically orchemically integrated with the body of the sail in the axis of areplaced batten and batten pocket; C. said combination of fibers havinga reference density ratio of approximately two diagonal or verticalfibers to one horizontal fiber; D. Each such integral batten substitutehaving one or more variable density zones proximate to rig contactpoints and sail folding points in which zones vertical or diagonal fiberdensity is reduced by fifteen-percent; and horizontal fiber density isreduced by thirty-percent; E. each such batten substitute having acollective rigidity level approximately equal to that of the batten andbatten pocket elements it replaces; whereby a new use of fiber-orientingtechnology unexpectedly results in lighter, less voluminous, batten-freeoptimized mainsails for boats having conventional or furling booms. 20.The sail system of claim 12 with the following distinguishing oradditional properties: A. A releasable tack; B. A strop with a rapidfixation connected to said tack; C. A through-sail grommet or faucetcapable of water passage; D. solar cells or panels attached to orintegrated into the tissue of said sail; whereby a self-boomed mainsailprovides solar energy, water catchment and sunshade properties.